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?

assassins-4427872_960_720.jpg

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
I had a CN PC who would sacrifice himself for his friends (but not strangers unless it sounded like a fun time) who would never lie or deceive because he saw it as a sign of personal weakness. If he gave his word it was a matter of honor to keep it, which is why he almost never did. He had zero respect for title, authority or law of the land.

You may say he wasn't CN. You may even be right, people don't fall into one simple alignment. But it was my interpretation of what alignment meant for my barbarian.

I think this is a very good example of CN.

I'm currently playing a samurai/ronin character who's very devoted to the code of (fantasy) bushido. This could be CN but ultimately I decided LN was a better match due to my pursuing the notion of "civilization" whereas I think the CN version would have emphasized the ronin status.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
You're saying LEROY JENKINS!!!! is CN?

P.S. Sorry for the the caps, but it's part of the trademark requirement.

I think he's a canonical example of Chaotic Stupid, but there are folks who think that Chaotic Neutral <-> Chaotic Stupid.

There are several alignments that don't fit on the chart that nevertheless exist, Chaotic Stupid and Lawful Stupid being canonical examples. My favorite is "Evil Good", which seems like a contradiction in terms but is a good representation of the kind of character who does the right thing and fights with the heroes but for very wrong reasons---enjoying cruelty, dominance, or "getting one over on others", for instance. This is, of course, probably just boring old Neutral Evil, though.
 

Derren

Hero
What I miss from the spectrums of CN people usually use is the Anarchist.
Someone who wants to tear down the established society and replace it with a better one offering more freedom, no matter if he goes against an evil tyrann or a beloved king. An agitator who riles up the peseants even when knowing fully well that it will lead to violence and death with low to no chance of success.
 

Oofta

Legend
What I miss from the spectrums of CN people usually use is the Anarchist.
Someone who wants to tear down the established society and replace it with a better one offering more freedom, no matter if he goes against an evil tyrann or a beloved king. An agitator who riles up the peseants even when knowing fully well that it will lead to violence and death with low to no chance of success.
Which is another possibility. Just not the only one.
 

True but mostly what had the gold and didn't want to give it up? It wasn't Papers & Paychecks.

I agree, but the old GP XP system allowed you to kill, steal, negotiate, lure, trick your way to getting GP/XP... The new XP system is pretty straight forward... it's kill, kill, kill for XP... So murder hobo'ism is encouraged.

And no, the game is not Papers & Paycheck... so providing XP for adventurous actions are not out of place. If people want to play a game about being office workers climbing the corporate ladder or teens dealing with their anxiety, that's fine - but it's not D&D, nor should D&D feel the need to fill that niche. Other games can do that perfectly fine.
 

lewpuls

Hero
Despite the fatuous "get off my lawn" comment and the equally-useless "how does this get used on this site" waste of time (typically meaning "I disagree vehemently", oh well), this has been a really interesting set of comments. It would be a good place to start for anyone wanted to write a treatise on how to role-play alignment.

But I care about alignment only from a design perspective, the constraints it imposes (or does not) on player behavior in a game. I wasn't trying to justify CN by describing a kind of CN behavior that works. I was describing common play. If that's a bias or extremely one-sided, so be it.

I started playing the game when there was only Law and Chaos, which were roughly equivalent to good and evil (from Michael Moorcock mostly). I always wondered how a chaotic person (necessarily untrustworthy and inconsistent) could be Good. Some have turned Chaotic into "anti-authority," but that's not what the word means.

(Definition, Chaotic:
"in a state of complete confusion and disorder."
": marked by chaos (Definition of CHAOS) or being in a state of chaos : completely confused or disordered".
"Something chaotic is really out of control or disorganized.")

Oh, the original title for this was "Thugs", but I was required to change that (I chose Hoodlums), and the editor changed the title to what has been used.

I briefly wondered it there was some connection between alignment and playing style. Planners would be Lawful, Improvisors Chaotic, and the in-between adapters Neutral. I don't know. I'd say those unwilling to take time to plan are more likely to be chaotic. See
"A Different Look at Player Styles: Planners and Improvisers"
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
All of this is IMO, IME....

Honestly, I think tic-tac-toe alignment is rather pointless.

You like Authority? Which authority? Why?
You're concerned only for yourself? What about you....money, power, fame?
You have a Code of Honor? Where does it conflict with itself, or what would make it?
You want to do good for others? What does that mean to you?
You want to harm others? Why? When is it worth it?

AFAICT, most players are aligned with "TEAM MURDERHOBO" and don't care too awful much about the rest because it really doesn't help or factor into too much. (Except give the Old-school paladin an excuse to beat up on the thief character.) If you want to make ethics and morality matter to the story/PCs you need to find out where the internal conflicts are and push on it.

I look at a character like Worf, especially in DS9. What's important to him? His personal sense of Klingon Honor, Romance with Dax, and finding a place in Klingon or Federation Society. What makes it interesting is when those are put into conflict. Is Worf lawful? Well, he certainly tries to adhere to a pretty intense code of conduct, but he always seems to choose that over authority (and thus keeps getting himself and his house kicked out of Klingon society.) He does a bunch of crazy stuff for Jadzia, as well, but his grumpiness about honor and Klingon ritual and tradition makes that a bumpy ride, too.

To do something like that in D&D, you need to give character multiple drives or allegiances and put them in conflict. "I'm CN so stuff it. LULZ" or "I'm LG, so I need to fill out a form first." aren't really interesting to me.

The only context in which the alignment idea is sensible is (as previously mentioned by others) when you have restricted the available set of actions and scenarios to a limited set, and alignment restricts or permits some actions within that set. (Can I kill the guy who surrendered? Can I torture the prisoner? Can I steal from the party, the king, etc.?) Once you step outside that realm, it loses relevance.

Naturally, YMMV, etc.
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I think he's a canonical example of Chaotic Stupid, but there are folks who think that Chaotic Neutral <-> Chaotic Stupid.

There are several alignments that don't fit on the chart that nevertheless exist, Chaotic Stupid and Lawful Stupid being canonical examples. My favorite is "Evil Good", which seems like a contradiction in terms but is a good representation of the kind of character who does the right thing and fights with the heroes but for very wrong reasons---enjoying cruelty, dominance, or "getting one over on others", for instance. This is, of course, probably just boring old Neutral Evil, though.
A not-on-the-chart alignment I've used for one particular character since the 1980's is NG; except in this case it stands for Neutral Greedy.

He's not a thief, and not dishonest in any way, but he's as avaricious as they come. If there's a choice of missions, for example, he'll always go for the most (potentially) profitable option. Everything of any value gets stripped out of every dungeon, even if hauling it out means taking a bit more risk and-or time. You get the idea. :)

And, your "Evil Good" alignment raises a bigger point, that being whether means or ends are more important in defining one's alignment.

1. Using evil means to achieve good ends - good or evil?
2. Using good means to achieve evil ends - good or evil?

An example of 1. might be capturing and torturing a guard (evil means) to find out where the kidnapped prince is being held and what is guarding him, such that you and your party can rescue said prince (good ends).

An example of 2. might be heroically putting oneself at significant risk to save a town from some disaster (good means) in order to gain that town's support when you later try to overthrow the king - a perfectly decent chap and good ruler - and put yourself on the throne as a tyrant (evil ends).
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Now I know who Leroy Jenkins is (thanks @PsyzhranV2 ) I can only say this:

The game needs more Leroys! (how long had they been standing there planning that assault before Leroy went off, anyway?)
 


Coroc

Hero
Now I know who Leroy Jenkins is (thanks @PsyzhranV2 ) I can only say this:

The game needs more Leroys! (how long had they been standing there planning that assault before Leroy went off, anyway?)

Oh my, back then WoW was really challenging, especially the tactics needed for certain mob groups. If you were playing a bit WoW or similar games you were wishing for less Leroys i guarantee you, everybody knew some of these.
We had a rogue in the guild who spike damaged so high that he took the well established aggro from the tank at Onixia raid, thereby draining the healers mana dry who despereately tried to keep the whole raid up.
After he did this the second time he was kicked from the raid (and i think out of the guild also)
That really was chaotic neutral behviour par excellence.
But TPK in a MMPORPG is something different than in pen and paper, the former being reversible the latter somethimes not.
So be careful what you wish for, you might get it :p
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Oh my, back then WoW was really challenging, especially the tactics needed for certain mob groups. If you were playing a bit WoW or similar games you were wishing for less Leroys i guarantee you, everybody knew some of these.
We had a rogue in the guild who spike damaged so high that he took the well established aggro from the tank at Onixia raid, thereby draining the healers mana dry who despereately tried to keep the whole raid up.
After he did this the second time he was kicked from the raid (and i think out of the guild also)
That really was chaotic neutral behviour par excellence.
But TPK in a MMPORPG is something different than in pen and paper, the former being reversible the latter somethimes not.
So be careful what you wish for, you might get it :p
Having never played WoW in my life I'll have to take your word for all of this. :)

Of course, in the actual Leroy scenario the rest of the party could always have just stayed put and left him to it...
 

Hussar

Legend
When we talk about alignments, I think it's usually a good idea to use archetypes. Now, my archetypes for CN would be the following:

Q from Star Trek the Next Generation - this is a being who initiated contact between the Borg and the Federation centuries ahead of time, resulting in massive death and disruption. Basically Trickster God.

Jayne from Firefly - betrays the crew for personal gain. Has virtually zero interest in anything other than his own personal gain.

Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean - self centered, completely in it for himself.

Lucifer from Lucifer. Although, the argument could be made for other alignments. I'd say he exemplifies CN whenever the Detective is not around.

Now, in any of those examples, would you entrust that person with the keys to your mint condition E-type Jaguar with the admonition not to drive while you go away for a couple of weeks?

To me, CN is the alignment players take to signal to the DM that they don't want the DM to tell them what they can or cannot do.
 

aco175

Legend
I keep reading about all these great movie parts that are CN and how players want to be the same with their PCs. How does that translate to a party and playing together as a group game? Not a lot of players in my games try to play CN, most are LG, NG, or LN. I also do not know how much their chosen alignment comes into play since they all seem to play a way that would be a good or lawful alignment instead of trying to play something else.

How much does the DM limit players in character choices and force them to do certain actions? I see most players acting a certain way and it does not matter what is written on their sheet.
 

Hussar

Legend
To me, alignment should be descriptive. Your character did x, y and z, so, this alignment best describes your character.

I think a lot of people see alignment as prescriptive. You are this alignment, so, you should do x, y and z. And this is where a lot of friction between players and DM's come in, especially if that prescription doesn't match with their own personal understandings.
 

Coroc

Hero
Having never played WoW in my life I'll have to take your word for all of this. :)

Of course, in the actual Leroy scenario the rest of the party could always have just stayed put and left him to it...
Nope, the way WoW worked inside instances like here was, if someone pulled half of the dungeon populations aggro, then standing away would eventually not help you, they would shred him to pieces and then come for the rest of the group.
They would have to flee for the entrance, which could be a long way. Paladins could bubble up and use their hearthstone to get out. This "exploit" was creating a very bad reputation for them.
In raids one healer did receive a so called soulstone from a warlock so he could self resurrect and then raise the rest of the group when the mobs had calmed down after a wipe (=TPK)
Dying in WoW back then damaged your gear and repairs did cost in game gold which was scarce back then.
 

Staffan

Legend
I like the alignment interpretation I've seen Keith Baker talk about, where Lawful means your primary concern is the group (cult, country, military unit, society, etc.) and Chaotic means you primarily care about individuals. Good and Evil then becomes about what methods you use to achieve your goals. A Lawful Evil and a Lawful Good person could both be part of the same organization, but the LE person would be the one who says "Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" and goes all Jack Bauer on captured enemies, while the Lawful Good person, well, would not.
 

MrZeddaPiras

[insert something clever]
While my way of using alignment is similar what some people here described (the lawful-chaotic axis represents the relationship with the powers-that-be, the good-evil axis represents altruism vs egoism), I agree that no D&D book I know of explained alignment that way.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top