D&D General Worlds of Design: Chaotic Neutral is the Worst

In my articles from the early 1980s I often characterized the typical D&Der as a hoodlum (hood). You may know them by many other names: ruffian, bully boy, bully, bandit, mugger, gangster, terrorist, gunman, murderer, killer, hitman, assassin, hooligan, vandal, and more. Has anything changed?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

According to D&D Beyond, as reported by Morrus, the most popular alignment after Chaotic Good is Chaotic Neutral. I doubt the preponderance has changed much since the 80s; it might even be more common today in an Age of Instant Gratification thanks to the Internet. Even 40 years ago, most players wanted their characters to act like more or less Chaotic Neutral hoods, doing whatever they wanted but not responsible for what they did, able to act like hoodlums but not suffer the consequences of being of actual evil alignment. And they wanted to be called “Good” at the same time.

Fundamentally, this is a desire to avoid all constraints. Which is fairly natural for people, in general, though rarely attainable. But a game is an agreed set of constraints on behavior within the “magic circle” of the game. And some games have constraints that ought to affect the chaotic neutral character's behavior.

The typical hood wants to be able to do whatever he wants to, to other people. Occasionally killing one, or something just as evil, that’s OK as long as it isn’t excessive. In another context, I saw someone ask why so many people disliked a certain person as a liar, because after all he told the truth more often than he lied! That would be ideal standard for a hoodlum, but most people don’t see it that way. Key to this behavior is a desire to avoid responsibility, very common in the real world too - people wanting to do things without facing the consequences (taking responsibility).

The question is, how does “the game” see it? Taking D&D as the obvious example, we have alignment as a guide to behavior. The alignment system in D&D was designed (I think) to provide constraints on character behavior, so that games wouldn’t devolve into a bunch of murderers having their way with the game-world. Certain alignments have advantages in civilized society, some don’t. In uncivilized society, other alignments might be preferred. Chaotic Neutral (the alignment hoodlums gravitate to) should be a disadvantage in civilized contexts because it doesn’t include/condone permission to kill people whenever you feel like it (as long as you don’t do it often!). Yet that’s how players want to treat it. That’s Evil, and if you behave “evilly” you’re going to be in an Evil category, which makes you fair game for a lot of adventurers.

I’m not saying killing is necessarily evil, e.g. in wartime it’s expected that you kill the enemy if they won’t surrender. It’s the “senseless killing,” killing for sheer personal gain or enjoyment, that sets apart the hood (who wants to be called Chaotic Neutral, or better, Chaotic Good), and of course the “officially” Evil characters as well.

D&D GMs who feel that constraints make the game better, will enforce alignment and make clear to Chaotic Neutral types that they can easily slide into Evil alignment. Those who aren’t interested in constraints, will let the C/N types do just about everything they want to do without consequences. In other rule sets, who knows . . .

Of course, Your Mileage May Vary. If everyone wants to be a hood rather than a hero, and the GM is OK with that, so be it. It’s when you run into players who think (as I do) that these characters are the worst -- certainly, not someone you would want in your party! -- that we encounter problems.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

"A Chaotic Neutral character is anti-authority and neither an altruist or an egoist."

I'd say they're relatively ethical egoists.

A CE thief doesn't care who he steals from - he'll swindle little old ladies, stab drunks and take their coin pouch, and sacrifice children to demons for power.

A CN thief is out for himself within some limits. Han Solo isn't going to smuggle slaves, but he'll run all kinds of contraband past Imperial blockades. A CN thief probably shouldn't be breaking into a good king's storerooms or a temple known for it's renowned healers, but pilfering jewelry from a rich merchant, running illegal gambling dens, or conning nobles in a corrupt, oligarchical city like Greyhawk, Lankhmar or Zobeck are all well within the limits of a CN character's ethics - robbing the corrupt rich to give to yourself is just survival and making your way in a society where those who play by the rules get screwed, but you don't have to become a complete monster.

 

[Ministry of Truth]

From a game mechanism i don't have a problem with chaotic neutral/good character having more freedom than other characters, I simply believe that characters played within more constrained alignments should be awarded through game mechinisms. Without such mechanisms players will always chose the path of least resistance.

 

[Charlaquin]

"A Chaotic Neutral character is anti-authority and neither an altruist or an egoist."

I'd say they're relatively ethical egoists.

A CE thief doesn't care who he steals from - he'll swindle little old ladies, stab drunks and take their coin pouch, and sacrifice children to demons for power.

A CN thief is out for himself within some limits. Han Solo isn't going to smuggle slaves, but he'll run all kinds of contraband past Imperial blockades. A CN thief probably shouldn't be breaking into a good king's storerooms or a temple known for it's renowned healers, but pilfering jewelry from a rich merchant, running illegal gambling dens, or conning nobles in a corrupt, oligarchical city like Greyhawk, Lankhmar or Zobeck are all well within the limits of a CN character's ethics - robbing the corrupt rich to give to yourself is just survival and making your way in a society where those who play by the rules get screwed, but you don't have to become a complete monster.

Sure. I’d say “ethical egoism” - that is to say, someone who largely acts out of self-interest but not when doing so would directly harm others - is just a shade of neutral. It’s not true egoism, which is what I consider D&D Evil to represent. It’s just a specific expression of “neither altruistic nor truly egoistic.”

 

[scotchgarble]

I like to put a situational twist on CN as a temporary period of identity moratorium.

The character, prior to the campaign, has just had their faith/trust knocked out from under them or are reassessing their lives. The fun in roleplaying from this perspective is that the adventure itself begins to reshape the character's morality in C/L/G/E ways.

 

[Celebrim]

It’s not true egoism, which is what I consider D&D Evil to represent.

I think I could mostly go along with that statement provided that you accepted Lawful Evil as a sort of modified egoism where direct self-interest was fully subsumed by indirect self-interest through the advancement of the kinship group. So, for example, in biological terms the lawful component of 'Lawful Evil' represents social organizations where the individual foregoes directly advancing its own genetic line to ensure the survival of kindred genetic lines.

That said, I think your going to find that there is a missing component necessary to figure out what is 'evil', and this will be true even of your 'egoism' definition. That is to say, it will be necessary to answer why your hypothetical true egoist is evil, and why a colony of bees and everything organized like them isn't lawful evil. I think that strangely that idea comes down to 'destructive'. For egoism to be evil it must also be destructive. Egoism overlaps with evil precisely because self-interest almost always overlaps with 'at the expense of others' unless you specifically attach prohibitions against that to your egoistic philosophy. Lawful evil is evil because, in addition to being lawful, it is destructive.

 

[DWChancellor]

That said, I think your going to find that there is a missing component necessary to figure out what is 'evil', and this will be true even of your 'egoism' definition.

I feel like we're mixing the two axes a little bit (maybe I'm not reading you closely enough).

Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic refers to an individuals willingness/interest to direct themselves according to generally accepted norms and structures. A lawful individual expects everyone to behave to the same code. Problems are solved within a structure of rules by rules. A chaotic individual determines what they think is appropriate at any given moment. A dedicated judge vs. an orc chieftain.

Good - Neutral - Evil - Refers to the perception and relative importance of the well-being of others. A good person is concerned with the well-being of others and would seek to support or assist as an end onto itself. A neutral character does not feel a strong need to go out of their way for others (but maybe a spouse, child, or ally). An evil character sees other's well-being as a resource or obstacle. Doctors without Borders vs. zero-sum industrial tycoon.

Mixing in kin and kin-selection, the perception of breadth of kin, etc... is complicating things. Devils are LE and have little to no sense of kin of any kind (with a few exceptions). Yet they follow codes and recognize common enemies. Ethical egoism is even worse since it is a rationalization and high philosophical definition that is way more granular than alignment in D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

If, for example, the game only gave you XP for rescuing kittens, and having tea with princesses, you'd see radically different behaviour...

Not least of which would be among the players, as they searched for a different game to play...

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Cicero said:

“There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”

Tacitus said:

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

The great economist Thomas Sowell said:

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong".

---

Being lawful doesn't mean agreeing always with authority. Captain America is the paradigma of paladin behavior, but he rebelled against the superhero registration act in the event Civil War. He defended law & order, but sometimes you have to say no. It is too dangerous too power in the hands of a little elite group.

* I hate that stupy manicheism about a cosmic balance between good and evil. Evil is the true breakup of the harmony.

* To survive groups need coordination and sharing a common allegiance (brotherhood, guild, religion, country, family, tribe).

 

[Lanefan]

What you have when you get CN at its worst is people being jerks and acting unreasonably. And engaging in lots of reckless and impulsive stupidity. And then claiming "this is roleplaying". It is people justifying extremely poor behavior.

Reckless and impulsive - what's wrong with that?

Like, seriously. I mean, if I'm at a table that spends two hours in meticulously planning for the next battle then damn right I'm going to do something reckless and impulsive just to get things moving! (and it's rare that this would be unsuited to the character I'm playing at the time; on the odd occasions when I play a true Lawful I accept that a considerable amount of boredom will likely come with the package)

And next time it looks like they're going to dig in for another long planning session, I'll do something reckless and impulsive a whole lot sooner.

I used to have a player almost exactly like that. In-game he was always trying to cause chaos. If he could get the rest of the group into hijinx, he was happy. That this came at the expense of the actual adventure caused no small amount consternation for me.

Were I at your table that more or less would have been me; and that it comes "at the expense of the actual adventure" is of no consequence. The adventure will still be there next session, or the session after; and you've already done the prep work.

 

[Retreater]

The problem with CN in D&D is that it's not a real alignment. Think of the other examples given from pop culture: Han Solo in A New Hope, Cpt. Jack Sparrow, etc.
If Han Solo didn't choose a side and didn't join the Rebellion (and become Chaotic Good), he'd have left at the end of A New Hope. He'd have been an NPC and not a heroic protagonist of the film series. Same thing with Jack Sparrow. He's ill-suited for being in a heroic game like D&D when he's playing the CN alignment. The times when he's acting heroic and acting for the common good, that works. But other times, he's an NPC.
D&D doesn't work when characters can't decide what side of the fence they're on.

 

[DWChancellor]

The problem with CN in D&D is that it's not a real alignment. Think of the other examples given from pop culture: Han Solo in A New Hope, Cpt. Jack Sparrow, etc.

Jack Sparrow is definitely a NPC. He's there to be occasionally useful, often entertaining, but mostly to move things along.

Han Solo is definitely a PC. First he was playing in a two player party doing heists and smuggling -- Han and Chewie. Then some more friends joined and the DM whipped out a huge plot. Han got attached to Princess Leia (CN can get attached to individuals!) and found himself adopting her priorities. Que new sequels where Han and Leia have drifted apart -- Han returns to his two-man show (Han and Chewie doing heists and smuggling.) Han only really turns "good" in the Extended Universe. In the movies, he's heavily under the influence of another character and accepts good aspects because that's what it means to be with her.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with CN in D&D is that it's not a real alignment. Think of the other examples given from pop culture: Han Solo in A New Hope, Cpt. Jack Sparrow, etc.
If Han Solo didn't choose a side and didn't join the Rebellion (and become Chaotic Good), he'd have left at the end of A New Hope. He'd have been an NPC and not a heroic protagonist of the film series. Same thing with Jack Sparrow. He's ill-suited for being in a heroic game like D&D when he's playing the CN alignment. The times when he's acting heroic and acting for the common good, that works. But other times, he's an NPC.

Jack Sparrow is a wonderful PC - none better!

That said, your bias shows in your phrase "a heroic game like D&D".

D&D doesn't work when characters can't decide what side of the fence they're on.

I couldn't disagree more.

D&D might in fact work best when characters can't decide what side of the fence they're on, at least in terms of roleplay, character exploration, negotiation (be it peaceful or violent), and so forth. It's certainly much more entertaining, and after all isn't that why we do this in the first place - entertainment?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think I could mostly go along with that statement provided that you accepted Lawful Evil as a sort of modified egoism where direct self-interest was fully subsumed by indirect self-interest through the advancement of the kinship group. So, for example, in biological terms the lawful component of 'Lawful Evil' represents social organizations where the individual foregoes directly advancing its own genetic line to ensure the survival of kindred genetic lines.

So you’re thinking like a Tywin Lannister type, who does evil in service to their family rather than themselves, even when what is best for the family might not be what is best for the individual? I can see that. Though, I might argue that such behavior is still ultimately self-serving, if we recontextualize their actions in service to their own legacy, rather than to their family members.

That said, I think your going to find that there is a missing component necessary to figure out what is 'evil', and this will be true even of your 'egoism' definition. That is to say, it will be necessary to answer why your hypothetical true egoist is evil, and why a colony of bees and everything organized like them isn't lawful evil.

Ah, yes. I would say the differentiating factor is sapience. A sapient being is capable of recognizing the harm that acting in their self-interest can bring to others, and must consciously decide that their own interest is more important to them than the interests of those harmed in its pursuit. A colony of bees (presumably) does not have such complex theory of mind. They are, accordingly, Unaligned.

I think that strangely that idea comes down to 'destructive'. For egoism to be evil it must also be destructive. Egoism overlaps with evil precisely because self-interest almost always overlaps with 'at the expense of others' unless you specifically attach prohibitions against that to your egoistic philosophy. Lawful evil is evil because, in addition to being lawful, it is destructive.

Ahh, yes, I agree. I should qualify that acting in one’s self-interest per se is not what I consider Evil to mean in D&D. It must specifically be acting in one’s self interest at the expense of others. And that leaves room for ethical egoism as a form of Neutral, rather than evil.

 

[mrpopstar]

I'm in the camp that chaotic neutral describes a character who flouts responsibility, advancing the individual self over common society with a display of indifference to helping or harming others.

With regard to helping or harming others, chaotic neutral describes behaviors like thuggery, con artistry and theft. -- Chaotic neutral characters aren't murderers. Murderers are evil.

 

[Charlaquin]

Cicero said:

“There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”

Tacitus said:

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

The great economist Thomas Sowell said:

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong".

---

Being lawful doesn't mean agreeing always with authority. Captain America is the paradigma of paladin behavior, but he rebelled against the superhero registration act in the event Civil War. He defended law & order, but sometimes you have to say no. It is too dangerous too power in the hands of a little elite group.

Being pro-authority doesn’t mean always obeying authority either. One can be opposed to authority they believe is unjust. But where the Chaotic (or anti-authoritarian) individual believes all authority is unjust, a Lawful (or pro-authoritarian) believes that authority is just, when in the appropriate hands. The LG Paladin and the CG Rogue may agree that the evil tyrant needs to be overthrown, and disagree over what (if anything) should take his place.

 

[Celebrim]

I feel like we're mixing the two axes a little bit (maybe I'm not reading you closely enough).

I don't think we are that far off.

Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic refers to an individuals willingness/interest to direct themselves according to generally accepted norms and structures. A lawful individual expects everyone to behave to the same code. Problems are solved within a structure of rules by rules. A chaotic individual determines what they think is appropriate at any given moment.

So one way to look at this is over the question of when things are in conflict, which ought to win. To say that a lawful individual expects everyone to behave to the same code is to say that you believe that authority or externals are more important than individual freedom. On the other hand, to say that an individual ought to determine what they think is appropriate at a given moment, is the same as saying that the individuals freedom is more important than external authority. Or to put it in a slightly different manner, lawfuls believe that they are and properly ought to be subject to external rules, and chaotics believe that individuals are not and properly ought not to be subject to external rules.

Good - Neutral - Evil - Refers to the perception and relative importance of the well-being of others.

Yes, but, hidden within your definition is my definition as well, because you've attached this idea of "well-being" to the idea, which turns out to be if we ask what it is the opposite of that thing that I labelled "destructive" and for which Gygax uses the term Weal.

As for 'kin' in this case 'kin' refers to everyone who is within your recognized 'in-group'. For example, the Devils are within limits ultimately loyal to their race. That said, I think that D&D writers over the years have had utterly thoughtless depictions of aligned societies that do not well portray the dominate philosophical beliefs of those societies, and as a practical matter there is little difference between how the devils and the demons beyond the depth trees of their feudal hierarchies. Drow society is notably not particularly chaotic. Devil society is notably not particularly lawful. Slaad definitely don't seem to be particularly embodied chaos.

 

[Celebrim]

chaotic neutral describes behaviors like thuggery, con artistry and theft.

If you've ever been on the receiving end of such behavior, it will feel pretty evil to you. I think you've fallen into the trap of describing 'Chaotic Neutral' as 'less evil Chaotic Evil'. Chaotic neutral in general, since they are passive on the good-evil spectrum, will avoid actively doing harm to others just as they will avoid altruistic behavior as well.

 

[mrpopstar]

If you've ever been on the receiving end of such behavior, it will feel pretty evil to you. I think you've fallen into the trap of describing 'Chaotic Neutral' as 'less evil Chaotic Evil'. Chaotic neutral in general, since they are passive on the good-evil spectrum, will avoid actively doing harm to others just as they will avoid altruistic behavior as well.

I'm inclined to say that avoidance implies a stance other than indifference.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm inclined to say that avoidance implies a stance other than indifference.

I'm inclined to say that it doesn't matter in the end, or to the extent that it does stances like avoidance, indifference and balance all are encompassed by the 'neutral' philosophy, so that a low intelligence character that is indifferent to those considerations and avoids harming others out of disinterest and a high intelligence character with a well developed philosophical stance of avoidance of extremes, are both equally 'neutral'.

Point is, Chaotic Neutral is not a license to regularly engage in evil behavior even if that behavior is less deplorable and depraved than murder. A Chaotic Neutral character will avoid theft except as in emergencies, and if stealing will tend to focus on targets which he believes can afford to suffer the loss, precisely because they recognize that theft is harm.