What is Chaotic Neutral? It's one of he hardest alignments to define, as far as I have seen. CAN you define it with hard lines?
Would letting a coin toss (chance/chaos) decide your actions count as chaotic neutral? Is chaotic neutral just being an asshole for shits and giggles? Where's the line between that and chaotic evil or chaotic good?
Image is just what came up on Google, I wasn't looking for anything too specific.
>Would letting a coin toss (chance/chaos) decide your actions count as chaotic neutral?
You are looking out for you and fuck laws and society.
You are both okay with helping yourself and others, but are adamant on keeping your freedom and freedom of others
I wouldn't say freedom of others as much.
Like you won't go out of your way to fuck them over, but push comes to shove you lookin out for you.
But you are not stupid if push comes to shove and someone wants to lock you all down.
It's the cop out for people who can't roleplay a character consistently.
Alternatively, it's someone who doesn't restrict themselves by any code, higher power, or authority, who is typically self serving and isn't above being malicious, although they typically aren't.
Chaotic Neutral is pretty much "I don't really give a fuck about anything besides people close to me and doing what I want." They don't actively seek to hurt people, but they won't go out of their way to help, either.
A CN character might want to destroy all forms of government and think everyone should govern themselves as individuals, or they might just simply not give a fuck about what governments say and follow whatever moral or ethical code they've settled on for themselves.
The main problem is that people think CN is the "LOLSORANDUMB RETAAAAARD" alignment.
>Would letting a coin toss (chance/chaos) decide your actions count as chaotic neutral?
That would be insanity, and possibly not even chaotic neutral. If it's by coin-flip then there's only two options, which isn't enough to encompass all of reality for most options. So you have to device what subset of reality to narrow things down to. How you divide them can make you good, neutral, or evil depending on what you choose.
I don't really get how cn is doesn't follow a personal code while true neutral is basically that as well
wut
True Neutral is either true apathy or actively trying to equalize everything
Chaotic Neutral does care about their anarchy. They are willing to fight and die to keep that anarchy.
>The main problem is that people think CN is the "LOLSORANDUMB RETAAAAARD" alignment.
This so much.
Chaotic Neutral can have a personal code. Saying "I don't kill without getting paid" isn't lawful or good.
I can imagine chaotic neutral character that adhere to chaotic code of conduct. Taoists, clerics of chaotic deities,...?
As a rule of thumb, CN characters will either just do whatever seems like the best idea at the time, regardless of whether or not someone in authority has told them to do so, or they'll actively buck authority and try to tear it down.
If you live in anarchic society, you want to keep it anarchic and not let someone bring a state to it.
...ok?
>They don't actively seek to hurt people, but they won't go out of their way to help, either.
that seems more evil to me, someone who is entirely selfish is evil
someone who doesn't go out of their way to hurt people, but will do it if it benefits themeselves is still evil, not neutral
>kills an entire village of innocent people
>"that wasn't an evil act, they got in my way!"
>walks past a dying man begging for water
>"i don't go out of my way to help people, not evil though"
Cool hyperbolic strawman brah
That's because what he posted was neutral, not chaotic neutral.
Chaotic neutral is about individuality unrestrained. Most people have a personal code of ethics they go by, and generally whether or not they harm or hurt people is not really the main concern. They usually don't let people suffer because that restrains the sufferign persons individuality - unless that person made the chice to get themselves in that situation, in which case it's all on them. Likewise, as long as someone isn't harming others to prevent the other person's self expression, they're not interested in saving people from other people. Not their duty.
Unless someone is actively trying to prevent self expression or restrict an individuals choices and freedom to be themselves. Then it's right the fuck on.
Not that user, but I did play with a guy who tried to argue burning down a city as a 'distraction' wasn't chaotic evil, just chaotic neutral, because chaotic neutral means he can 'do what he wants'.
The group slowly got sick of his characters after a while.
apathy is not evil
[strawman intensifies]
Sounds like a problem with the player.
Brothers, what is a man if not Chaotic Neutral? Sometimes the villain, sometimes the hero, a leaf carried on the winds of fate. Is there any more fickle and inconsistent slave master than the human heart? To be mortal is to vacillate between good and evil and ultimately be governed by the competing forces of pettiness and whimsy instead.
Think of someone who doesn't give a fuck, but isn't actively vicious. They don't care about your opinions, they don't care about social mores, they don't care about your religions or your governments. They just care about whatever fascinates them. They don't try to harm others to prove themselves, but they will fucking destroy anything between themselves and their hobbies. Or walk around if that is easier. They consistently don't give a fuck about what others consider right and wrong and give less then a fuck about how others confine themselves to a particular creed.
Think the modern fedora tipping man-child of Veeky Forums
No. True Neutral is also not having the balls to stand by your creed. Cowardice is far more True Neutral then either of the two options you put forward.
>being that guy
that's evil you mongoloid, think of the majority of villians in fiction and you have described them
someone who won't stop at anything to get what they want, whether its power, wealth, or immortality, no matter how many people die or worse
that is evil, not neutral
I believe neutral people have inhibitions to stop them from hurting others. Probably not as strong as Good characters, but still. They will certainly hurt others for _good_ reason, or out of ignorance. But they will usually try to avoid doing so.
This. In my mind, this is the real difference between neutral and evil. Neutral people have limits. They won't hurt people to advance their interests, not unless they're desperate or provoked. Meanwhile, an evil person will.
Chaotic Neutral is:
-Looking out for yourself and/or your party at the expense of everyone else
-Actively avoiding being subject to the rules of others
-Not particularly caring how a goal is accomplished, as long as you and your party benefit and it's not too evil
-Good and evil deeds you commit are byproducts of your own desires. If saving all the children in a village will give you more gold from the mayor, then that's what you'll do.
It's quite simple, really. I played a CN Gnome Ranger in my last game who was the life of the party. Real scrappy, witty, and inherently did not trust anyone but himself, but went along with the party for personal gain. We all had a great time with him while I tried my best to roleplay with a back-county Australian accent.
I play 0E clones. There are three alignments:
Lawful - Likes people and human habitats and wants them to survive and thrive (in general).
Chaotic - Hates people and human habitats and wants them to wither and be destroyed (in general).
Neutral - Is not willing to work hard for the benefit or destruction of people and human habitats (in general).
For most of my campaigns I just say "play lawful or neutral because I don't want you destroying towns and generally acting like an evil-ass monster."
Alignment hardly comes up beyond that.