How do you play chaotic neutral correctly?

Choose narrow group of people you like. Make sure they will be okay. At any cost. Regardless of consequences.

Alternatively, a CN character might have a single, often personal, goal with the completion thereof being more important than the method by which this is attained. ie: "I will save my sister no matter what it takes," or "I'll end this tyranny and I'll take down anyone who gets in my way to do it," or "I'll make this cure work, even if I have to ignore all ethical standards in the process."

Stupid = TN by default

Chaotic neutral doesn't exist. Only Chaotic and Neutral.

You don't play chaotic neutral correctly.

You don't play chaotic neutral.

You don't play.

Don't play.

Don't.

I....
I don't hate this alignment chart.
What the fuck is wrong with me today?

The only one I don't like is NE. Disease just seems out of place with the other things.

This is a fair point, but I'm not sure what else would go there, since most other dangerous weather phenomena would be Chaotic.

Maybe the cold would fit? Or a desert?

A lifeless land as the opposite of the NG. Not intermittent like weather or useful like fire, but is still hostile to your existence. I can't think of a wise quote for it though.

You know, there's probably a good Jack London quote for the Alaskan wilds what might work.

>A vast silence reigned over the land. The land itself was a desolation, lifeless, without movement, so lone and cold that the spirit of it was not even that of sadness. There was a hint in it of laughter, but of laughter more terrible than any sadness-a laughter that was mirthless as the smile of the Sphinx, a laughter cold as the frost and partaking of the grimness of infallibility. It was the masterful and incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the effort of life.

This might work if trimmed a bit

"Our food lies ahead and death stalks us from behind." — Ernest Shackleton

>How do you play chaotic neutral correctly?
Captain.
Jack.
Sparrow.

Chiana works too.

Conan.

By rememberign chaos isn't lolrandom, or chaotic stupid. It's not even about funny. It's about changing. Change of oneself to grow and become different, to avoid stagnation and mindless stupidity. Stupid choices lead to incarceration, death, or destruction, and while the last might be interesting, once something is destroyed, it really can't change any further, and the other two definitely lead to stagnation.

Chaotic neutral is understanding that the world changes, and you can change with it, and that you can change the world, and both you and the world can grow. It's knowing that neither death nor kindness can really lead to true change, that only teaching and learning and living well and with no regrets can lead to honest and true changes. It's knowing that people are not meant to be unchanging, dull, monotonous creatures, but they resist change, so you have to be the better person and show them by example what growth and change is about.

This, Han Solo before he comes back for the death star assault is prime CN. Afterwards he is CG.

I would say, something along the lines of littlefinger but more rebellious. Do what you want, when you want, accept rules only if you are profiting from them and know only yourself as your master.

Sounds stupid when you put it this way.

Is Garak CN?

I watched just some of the movies with Kirk, so I unfortunaly don't know.

Unprincipled, but clever enough not to do anything stupid, like betraying the party or blatantly antagonising the city guard. Basically a career criminal.

He's Chaotic Dissembling.
It's hard to say his true Good/Evil alignment.
He does seem CN.

>Shackleton
Nice.

>Once something is destroyed, it can't change any further.
Destruction is just another type of change though, the matter isn't truly destroyed.

I'd say that Rick from Rick & Morty is a well played chaotic neutral. Although he often slips in pure chaotic evil territory.

1e:
Destroy for the sake of destruction
Think Archaon/Kefka
2e:
LOL RANDUMB cancer
3e:
"Free spirit" roguish type who can be pretty dickish but tends to stop short of outright murder
5e:
"Follow your whims"???

>neutral
>dexter

You play your character and if Chaotic Neutral is the best way to describe them you put that on your sheet. If it's not and your DM starts autistically screeching that you are violating your alignment you quietly get up from the table and leave.

Who cares?

NG Best alignment for all time. Eat shit everyone else. LN and CG can come too. But as a guest.

LG > LN > TN > CG > NG

The rest aren't interesting, but I love the quotes of all 5 of these, good stuff.

Put it down on your character sheet and just do whatever you want, within reason.
Every single time.
Because fuck the alignment system.

>How do you play chaotic neutral correctly?
CG with a shitload of bad habits.

Dexter wasn't Evil, and he followed a code very strictly, Where else would you put him?

>The heart can get really cold if all you've known is winter

>he followed a code
I don't know about him, but I would put your head into a wall.

Did you read either the books or watch the fucking show? Yeah he experimented at times, and tried different interpretations of his code, but he did, in fact, follow a code, and quite strictly.

Okay. That doesn't make him lawful.

Actually it does, go read any of the descriptions of Lawful Neutral in any of the D&D players handbooks or DMG's, but I do know that pretty much the only requirement of being lawful is that you follow a code, that code does not need to be a system of laws like today's modern society, it can be simply a personal code of ethics and morality, or even a code of conduct like Dexters, even though we never quite learn it all.

Do random shit and then yell "RADICAL FREEDOM." Your GM will love you for it.

>deserts
>lifeless

This nigga

It is true that not everyone that “follows a code” is Lawful Neutral.
However, Dexter’s code is an actual codified set of laws governing his conduct that he adheres to quite consistently.

Dexter is regimentally Lawful, despite breaking the law or failing to uphold his code all the time.
His chaotic impulse and desire drives his actions, but his actual actions and intent are very lawfully guided by his Code.
As to whether he is evil, he doesn’t kill good or even slightly evil people, he only ever kills those that he is certain are violently evil offenders that the world is better off without.
His intentions and actions are not really evil.
As to whether he is good, he doesn’t kill people for justice or for the good of anyone, he generally only kills because he likes it and could stop, but doesn’t.
His intentions and actions are not really good.
In short, Dexter is how I Lawful Neutral.

Have you ever been to the Sahara or Antarctica? Deserts whether hot or cold are by and large inhospitable to life, but I'm fairly sure he meant comparatively to the lush forest in neutral good, and not that deserts are entirely lifeless.

...

NE should be either salt flats or Antartic wasteland.

You got some kind of point?

>lel so rAandUMb xD WAFFLES owo

Please don't do this, to anyone reading. If you do do this, obtain bleach immediately.

Refer to this man. Be open to change. Cut throats and rescue orphans as appropriate to the situation and don't tie yourself down. Be malleable. Keep an open mind. You still have morals and SOME sense of empathy and goodwill, but it's all pretty subject to change and you see no issue in the occasional moral compromise in either direction.

But don't be a LE SO RANDUM!!! MEMES!! tool, either.

Yeah, that you're an idiot if you think having a private personal code to break the law is lawful.

Go read the Dungeons and Dragon's players handbooks, You know where the entire Lawful Chaotic Good Evil axes come from? they'll tell you the same fucking thing I just did, you fucking retard.

If you play with 9-point alignment, you're the retard.

Never said I did but when I used to I played it the way it was meant to be, you know the way they tell you it's supposed to be and that is that you allow a characters actions to define their alignment and not the other way around, so if you say put lawful good on your character sheet that only gets put there after your character shows that they both follow a code, and tend to be kind and generous.

I feel this is a good way to run a CN character.

I've been playing Tales of Berseria lately, and so far I can see that four out of the six Party Members are clearly Chaotic Neutral, and in different ways.

Velvet and Rokuro both have a goal that they will do almost anything in their power to accomplish, using every tool at their disposal to reach it. Though Rokuro has that whole "must repay debts" thing.

Eizen follows a creed that won't even allow what he is to get in the way of his freedom as a pirate.

And Magilou is just in the party because she gets bored otherwise and she wants to see the outcome of a bet. I'm willing to bet half the reason she's there is to fuck with the party.

Eleanor is Lawful Good turned Neutral Good, and I can't quite pin down Laphicet.

I k ow argueing the dumbness of alignment is the deadest of horses, but doesn't everyone have a code? An agent of freedom has a code (free all the slaves, destroy all the masters) an agent of pragmatism has a code (what's choice seems to lesd to the best outcome for [group]), even the joker has a code of the sort (he never seems to find a joke where the punchline is all the orphans get good homes). The question is sort of are you strict or are you wishy-washy.

The alignment should be on an axis like (selfish or not selfish) and (dedicated vs pragmatic).

>doesn't everyone have a code?
Is an agent of freedom’s code an actual codified set of laws governing their conduct that they adhere to quite consistently?
Is an agent of pragmatism’s code an actual codified set of laws governing their conduct that they adhere to quite consistently?
Is the Joker’s code an actual codified set of laws governing their conduct that they adhere to quite consistently?
Not all codes are created equal.

>The alignment should be on an axis like (selfish or not selfish) and (dedicated vs pragmatic).
This presumes dedicated opposes pragmatism.
Which would need additional explanation.

Rance is Chaotic Neutral with strong Neutral Evil leanings. He does whatever he pleases for the sake of pussy, adventure, and being able to kick some ass. Cut down on the fact that he's a total rapist and you pretty much have a chaotic neutral.

Rance's code is "I don't fuck children", and he sticks to that and is very disapproving of pedophiles and incest. Does that make him lawful? Fuck no.

I don't even know who the fuck rance is, but Dexter also despises pedophiles, and I'll point out that having one thing you hate and won't do, does not make you have a fucking code.

Dexter IS shown as having a code, a very extensive one, and he follows it, damn near all of the time, but he has never been shown in either of his forms to be inordinately cruel, he is always outwardly kind and generous, but he just happens to kill people, except he only kills those who kill the innocent repeatedly, period. Yeah he's made mistakes but he's human, even if just barely, that's what qualifies him as lawful neutral. Whereas this Rance you mention sounds like a Chaotic Evil fucktard who you somehow think is Chaotic Neutral, no rapist would qualify for neutral status, not in any edition of D&D I'm aware of.

>rance
The eponymous character from Sengoku Rance
Extremely based

Eizen is probably Neutral Good.
Roku is a fun case, in that he could easily be LN, CN or even LE.
Laphicet is NG as FUCK.

In general, i can't pin any Berseria characters to one alignment.
Because they're well-written and alignments are shit.

ask

Lawful, sure he has a code and sticks to it.
but, killing for the pleasure of killing sounds a bit evil to me.

Yeah but it's mitigated by the fact that his code prohibits him from killing anyone except other evil people. It's evil in the service of good, so neutral on balance.

You should honestly read the books or a least watch the first season of the show. I'm not the guys you're arguing with but he is arguably lawful neutral. I personally feel Dexter would be closer to true neutral because he's a sociopath but the other user makes a decent argument for LN.

I think the thing the differentiates Dexter is that his code is not his own made up code. His step father Harry noticed the he was killing small animals and doing other cereal killer stuff at a young age and gave him a set of rules on how, when, and who he could kill so the he could live a relatively normal life. This means he can only kill other killer, he has to have undeniable proof that they have killed before he can act and he always kills them in the same way, knife to the heart.

I think he's CN leaning CG towards the end of the series, followed by plunging back into the black of CN in In The Pale Moonlight.

The fact that it's a character from a Japanese hentai game proves nothing, but i'm not sure you were trying to make a point, but it does reinforce my assessment of the character as chaotic evil.

>only killing other killers
fair point, I can see that as neutral

He kills and disposes of them however he feels is appropriate in the books, if I remember correctly he buries the child molesting and murdering priest/preacher alive where he put his own victims. He's oddly not really picky about how he kills and disposes in the books.

chaotic neutral is pretty much what most people would play by default, it's rational self interest with the degree of sociopathy that naturally comes from being detached because you're playing a game instead of being literally there. If you want to play it well, it would be like a less degenerate patrick bateman tailoured to whatever setting it's in.

But also alignments are stupid and should be used to describe a character after the fact, not be something you try to play to in lieu of actual character motivations and personality traits.

Dexter is chaotic evil forced to act lawful neutral

>like a less degenerate patrick bateman
Yeah, like a whole lot less.

You are how you act. If he was truly chaotic evil then he wouldn't be acting lawful neutral.

Not a whole lot, just remove the dismemberment fetish and pointlessly murdering innocents for fun pretty much. Being generally kinky (but not actually to the point of being evil) fits CN fine, unless you're a puritan and think recreational sex is inherently evil.

>He's basically a sadistic serial killer and rapist without all the sadism, killing and rape

Or in other words, it's chaotic evil without the evil?

Yeah, how was that not apparent from the term Chaotic Neutral?

But then couldn't you rather find a chaotic neutral character to describe it?

They are difficult to portray, not a lot of examples exist, and at the moment I can't think of one.

So how would you define the difference between CE and CN?

A lack of any outstanding good or evil qualities.
CN is Robin Hood without going after King John to give to the poor/church, without giving a 3rd back to the dude they're stealing from and keeping it for themselves and people they like.
CN is Patrick Bateman while keeping all murderous tendencies only towards evil individuals.

I would define it on a characters action, rand is willing to and does rape according to that other user, that makes him chaotic evil. if he were focused on freedom for freedom's sake or simply being a pure agent of change, using actions that would not be considered outright evil or good, for wherever he goes. That would be chaotic neutral. I've never played the games and most likely never will, so perhaps he has a range of choices or possible portrayals, but that doesn't change that being willing to rape someone makes a person evil to the fucking core.

>being willing to rape someone makes a person evil to the fucking core.
Depends on who you're raping and on the circumstances

No, it really doesn't.

t. LG
Hypothetically, if your entire party gets tortured to death by a witch for example, rape is an adequate response.
It's not the same as going around fucking random villagers.

No it's it would be repulsive to a lawful good character, no matter what happened to him, at most he'd just kill the witch, or more likely capture her and imprison her, as punishment for her crimes like a true lawful good character.

The only way what you said could be true is if you're using an archaic definition for that word and I highly doubt you even know it.

>reading comprehension
I wasn't talking about what LG would do.

You were calling me lawful good? Hardly, more like, lawful neutral, perhaps even evil, as I follow my own code, and care little for society's. Rape would be repulsive to all except for Evil characters, ESPECIALLY Chaotic Neutral characters because they cherish freedom and self determination far too much to take it away from someone else. So, no, in that circumstance the CN character would simply murder the witch, and walk away because they usually have few attachments in the world.

The way you treat rape as some sort of absolute evil of all evils sounds LG to me.
>Rape would be repulsive to all except for Evil
LN and TN probably wouldn't really care about it happening to others but wouldn't do it themselves. They certainly wouldn't be repulsed by it on a moral level though.
>they cherish freedom and self determination far too much to take it away from someone else
A lot of CN characters only care about their own freedom. What happens to others doesn't matter to them. A character who goes around killing and raping people constantly would probably be CE, but a CN character wouldn't necessarily consider rape to be "abhorrent" or even "wrong".
The only difference between CN and CE is that CE is always an asshole and often for no reason.

If following a personal code of ethics makes you lawful, then NG and CG wouldn't exist.

I'm sure you can contrive some scenarios in which a generally good (or neutral) character would feel justified in raping someone.
Think about how easy it is to do for murder, robbery, etc.

DO WHAT YA WANT CAUSE A PIRATE IS FREE

could a CN character ever be in a military (or any kind of heavily structured) organization?

Rape is an absolute evil, and i only treat it that way because I've been through it and the aftermath, but that doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand, at the very least any True neutral and above character would find rape unacceptable, chaotic neutral is shaky because a lot of people don't understand how to portray someone who is an agent of change and never does the same thing twice, moving from place to place and action to action on their whims.

Thats not what I implied or meant to imply, and isn't true the difference is mainly in how strictly you adhere to your code, and how far you're willing to deviate from it, besides ethics are different from a personal code of conduct.
No, I can't because if a character commits rape they are evil, now I will admit that depends largely on ones definition of rape, the one I go by is forcing someone whether through extortion, coercion, or violence to have sex with you against their will.

What if a succubus cast a futadom dick conjuring spell and sapped your magic powers via your boipussy, with the only way to get them back being to return the rapefavor?