Why are chaotic neutral always so unimaginative, instead of ubermensch

Conan is not chaotic neutral. He doesn't fit any of the aligments, showing how bad they are at describing characters.

>>49880921
Conan is actually a pretty good example of character development over time. Going from a Chaotic Neutral barbarian to a more noble king. Alignments are good for a starting place, but they shouldn't define a character more than good old stories, and they shouldn't be mechanically binding.

alignments are important for the sake of obtaining and retaining particular supernatural powers, typically of the magical nature

it's a starting point, at best, as far as characterization goes

File: 1461860166263.png (416KB, 950x760px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 950x760px

>>49880921
Alignments are the result of character description, not the other way around. Conan's overall actions, at least prior to becoming King of Aquilonia, actually fit Chaotic Neutral pretty well. As the other Anon pointed out, though, he did eventually traverse to be more Chaotic Good once he became King.

Whenever the folks at TSR (or now, WotC) sat down to define what each alignment means, you can bet your ass they were thinking of Conan when describing Chaotic Neutral.

File: enlightenment.jpg (100KB, 598x566px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 598x566px

Actually, hang on, I've been meaning to re-write my concise diatribes on alignment for awhile now to reflect additional thoughts and recommendations, so I'm now using this thread as an excuse.

BROADLY SPEAKING, once you strip away all the fluff and descriptive text, D&D has traditionally defined the alignments in the following way:

- Good: You generally care about everyone.
- Neutral: You generally care about friends and family.
- Evil: You generally care only about yourself.

- Lawful: You are generally rigid
- Neutral: You are generally flexible
- Chaotic: You are generally spontaneous

Note the key word in all of that is "generally". Only beings of primal elements, like modrons or demons, are expected to *always* conform to their alignment. For every other being, alignment ends up being the sum of your actions, thoughts, and motivations, but not necessarily any single one of those.

>>49880807
Because Chaos is worst alignment type. They make good mooks and chumps for slaying, though

File: Be a Good Man.gif (498KB, 500x211px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 500x211px

Basically, in D&D terms, good and evil come down to altruism verses selfishness, while law and chaos are more about how you perform or think about such acts. Bearing that in mind, a perfect example of each of the nine alignments might say this about themselves:

LAWFUL GOOD
"I will help others I've never even heard of before because it's the right thing to do. I will work within the laws of the land and accepted social mores as much as possible to do so, but I will not be beholden to fundamentally evil laws.

NEUTRAL GOOD
"I will help others I've never even heard of before becase it's the right thing to do, in whatever way is best at the moment and after measured consideration of the current status quo and what will most benefit everyone."

CHAOTIC GOOD
"I will help others I've never even heard of before because it's the right thing to do. I will do so without regard for laws or social mores - I will not necessarily ignore such; rather, they simply will not enter into my consideration."

File: hqdefault.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>49882049
Stuff gets tricky with the morally Neutral alignments because "True Neutral" really means three different things.

LAWFUL NEUTRAL
"I will help those I personally know without expecting recompense, though it would be nice; anyone else will have to compensate me in some way. I will work within the laws of the land and social mores as much as possible while I do so, but I will not consider myself beholden to intentionally unfair laws."

TRUE NEUTRAL (Apathetic)
"I will help those I personally know without expecting recompense, though it would be nice; anyone else will have to compensate me in some way. I will help those people in whatever way seems best after a measured considering of the laws of the land ans social mores."
i.e., the only fully legitimate True Neutral alignment.

TRUE NEUTRAL (Dedicated)
"I will strive to maintain a balance between Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, as I believe that too much of any of these things will bring about terrible consequences."
i.e., "I'm a psychopath who honestly believes that if you save a life today, you may well have to take one tomorrow to maintain balance. In a very limited number of settings this is "legitimate", but in most settings there are actually no cosmic consequences to a dominance of Good over Evil. This alignment is actually the Neutral Evil alignment, except it is trying to justify itself.

TRUE NEUTRAL (Unaligned)
"I'm an unthinking animal and act only on natural instinct."
This is actually an acceptable True Neutral alignment as well, but it's not one that PCs can take. It's the alignment of animals and other nonsapient creatures.

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL.
"I will help those I personally know without expecting recompense, though it would be nice; anyone else will have to compensate me in some way. I will do so without regard for laws or social mores - I will not necessarily ignore such; rather, they simply will not enter into my consideration."

File: Aku.jpg (27KB, 502x371px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 502x371px

>>49882067
LAWFUL EVIL
"I will act only in my own self-interest and will need compensation to even considering others. I will work within the laws of the land and accepted social mores as much as necessary, but I will endeavor to twist such laws or mores in my favor at all times."

NEUTRAL EVIL.
"I will act only in my own self-interest and will need compensation to even considering others. I will act in whatever way seems most convenient at the time after a careful consideration of the status quo, which I will respect only insofar as it benefits me."

CHAOTIC EVIL
"I will act only in my own self-interest and will need compensation to even considering others. Laws and social mores mean nothing to me and will not enter into my consideration at any point. I probably mock the idea that they even should."

File: ThinkstockPhotos_web-1564854011.jpg (770KB, 3157x1578px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 3157x1578px

>>49882080
And finally, some examples of protagonists and antagonists from each alignment.

LAWFUL GOOD
- Protagonist: Superman, from DC comics
- Antagonist: US Marshal Sam Gerard, from The Fugitive (movie)

NEUTRAL GOOD
- Protagonist: Captain Kirk, from Star Trek (original series and movies)
- Antagonist: Apollo Creed, from Rocky and Rocky II

CHAOTIC GOOD
- Protagonist: Robin Hood, from English folktales
- Antagonist: Dib, from Invader Zim

LAWFUL NEUTRAL
- Protagonist: Judge Dredd, from 2000 AD comics
- Antagonist: Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables

TRUE NEUTRAL (Apathetic)
- Protagonist: Guts, from Berserk
- Antagonist: Haku, from Naruto

TRUE NEUTRAL (Dedicated)
None. As mentioned, this is actually the Neutral Evil alignment. Remember that this alignment is defined by its willingness to do evil if it's "necessary". The lesser of two evils is still, by definition, evil.

TRUE NEUTRAL (Unaligned)
- Protagonist: Willy, from Free Willy
- Antagonist: The shark, from the movie Jaws

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL
- Protagonist: The Mask, from the movie of the same name (decidedly NOT the comic version)
- Antagonist: Q, from Star Trek

LAWFUL EVIL
- Protagonist: Ains Oowl Gown, from Overlord
- Antagonist: Lex Luthor, from DC comics (specifically his corporate CEO incarnation)

NEUTRAL EVIL
- Protagonist: Light Yagami, from Death Note
- Antagonist: Anton Chigurh, from No Country for Old Men

CHAOTIC EVIL
- Protagonist: Jayne, from Firefly (less so in the movie Serenity)
- Antagonist: The Joker, from DC comics

File: Alignments for Gordons.png (277KB, 1340x2230px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1340x2230px

There we go. Next time there's an alignment debate I'm just going to whip this out. Faster than typing it up over and over again.

>>49881854
>>49882049
>>49882067
>>49882080
>>49882169
Can't get much more comprehensive and to the point than this.

Btw, anon, even though this thread will eventually devolve into a skubwar, I'd like to commend you on this magnificent synopsis. Did you get this from somewhere that I could reference later?

File: rXOM35367HR6bp4C4kO.gif (317KB, 735x1803px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 735x1803px

>>49882277
>Did you get this from somewhere that I could reference later?

18 years of playing Dungeons & Dragons (starting with Baldur's Gate in 1998), coupled with being an avid superhero comic book, TV show, and movie fan.

So, no, not really, although most of my understanding of D&D's description of good and evil come from the 3.0/3.5 books "Book of Exalted Deeds" and "Book of Vile Darkness". The fact that you don't have to *precisely* conform to an alignment and yet still be of that alignment can be found in the Order of the Stick webcomic, most specifically in my pic, specifically from the "your trying" bubble onwards. Link here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

Although the best description for the good alignment I've ever come across was actually in the move The Amazing Spider-Man (the first Andrew Garfield one), in the way that they re-worded the classic "great power" line. Paraphrased, it goes:

"If you can do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things."

I'm starting to abandon alignment altogether, especially because it has less and less to do with game rules.
-Paladins are not required to be lawful good anymore
-Monks are not required to be lawrul
-Druids are not required to be neutral something

If anything, alignment stifles character development and ignores complex motivations, such as good people doing bad things, villains being honorable, lawful people exercising civil disobedience, "crazy" people acting in rational self interest

>>49882402
>If anything, alignment stifles character development and ignores complex motivations

Alignment does none of those things. It is the end result of your motivations, actions, and thoughts, not the source of them. Lex Luthor isn't who is is because he's Lawful Evil, he's Lawful Evil because he's Lex Luthor.

Honestly, if I could change alignment, the only thing I would do is change the word "lawful" to "ordered". Because that's what it really means, it's just that its original inspiration used the phrase "law", so D&D does as well.

File: haman is incredulous.jpg (50KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x720px

>>49880807

If you had imagination at all you wouldn't be defined by alignment in the first place

>>49882479
Another good chart to cross-reference it with would be the political compass-style chart. Left (community) v Right (self) and Authoritarian v Libertarian.

File: 1390531498428.png (30KB, 349x308px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 349x308px

>People who think of alignments as discrete measurements instead of quick categorical tools

File: Disgust.jpg (239KB, 1044x770px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1044x770px

>There are "people" here who don't think alignments are just a catch-all term for your morals

File: AAEAAQAAAAAAAAXnAAAAJDgzNDRjMTljLWI4YWMtNDI5MC05NTcyLTZhNGE0MGRkMWExOQ.png (453KB, 698x400px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 698x400px

>>49882391
Not the other anon, but youre a cool guy anon, thanks for the alignment breakdown.

>>49882263
I, personally, would add one more note to chaotic. If a being is more dedicated to opposing a certain code of laws, set of traditions, or social system than maintaining any such that they themselves may possess they are chaotic in my mind. Not sure if it needed specification since Robin Hood had a code but because his opposition to King John was more defining of a characteristic he's chaotic but I feel like it does.

>>49883306
Yeah Chaotic and Lawful have always been societal definitions within alignment. Chaotic characters can hold strong personal morals, but just aren't in favor of standardized law.

>>49882263
Top shit. Keeping this.

File: alignments.jpg (74KB, 821x524px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 821x524px

>>49881728
>>49881854
>- Good: You generally care about everyone.
>- Neutral: You generally care about friends and family.
>- Evil: You generally care only about yourself.
I find fault with this. It's like if Hitler loves his dog, he isn't evil just for murdering a bunch of Jews. For me, it isn't about how narrowly the set of people you care about is, but rather your treatment of the people outside of that group. An evil person could absolutely be willing to die for his friends and family, it's just that he's willing to kill (or do similar nasty things to) people outside of that group for his own benefit, or those of his group.

>>49880807
Well one of those guys is made by a very famous very successful respected author who's work influenced others long after they've been published.

The others are made by Joe and Jack from accounting wanting some escapism.

>>49883375
Lawful Good and eugenic laws are not incompatible.

When Oliver Cromwell ordered the death of the children of Irish rebels, Gygax compared that to a Lawful Good Paladin doing the same to Orcs.

Gygax modeled Lawful Good on the morality of nobility, he explicitly said, for instance, that countenancing a law for utilitarian reasons was Neutral Good, not Lawful Good.

Source:
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-alignment-by-gygax.html

>>49883338
>Yeah Chaotic and Lawful have always been societal definitions within alignment. Chaotic characters can hold strong personal morals, but just aren't in favor of standardized law.
I just feel the need to specify it because a few of the people I occasionally run with have this weird understanding of alignments. The shit where CE just kicks puppies and burns down orphanages because "lol i'm evil". I was trying to play a CE warlock who's overarching goal was to destroy all monarchy and other royalty, make society classless with as much bloodshed as he felt was needed which was a lot. That and I'm always thinking of where to put Sven from dota 2 and always settle on CG.
>>49883375
You're thinking of it the wrong way. Consider it to be a bunch of circles surrounding one another going
>I'd do anything for
>I'd protect
>I'd help
>Pay me
>I'll prevent
>I'll oppose
>I'll attack
Good vs Evil is about how far you extend those inner ones versus the outer. The further the inner ones are, encompassing random dudes you don't know with the outer only encompassing evil dudes, then you're good. If you don't extend those first few very far but don't catch too many in the outer either you're neutral and if you get the biggest amount of dudes in those last few you're evil. No one is going to argue about Stalin being evil because he caught far, far too many in the latter groups despite there having to have been people he loved.

>>49880807
>Philosophers and teachers are stupid for thinking about abstract questions
>Now let me tell you my opinion on this abstract question
Why not just say "Why should I care?" and move on if you hate philosophy?

>>49883107
I want her to bully my penis.

>>49883375
Hitler was clearly Lawful Good/Neutral.

>>49880807
Because the people you're thinking of play an alignment, not a character who happens to be an alignment.

That said, alignments are shit because most people vary based on mood, how they feel on a particular issue, etc so at best you're going to get "usually [alignment]" out of most people.

>>49885121
>baiting at the speed of sound

>>49880807
That pics caption hurts me, Conan didnt say that it was Kull the Conqueror.

But because people see CN as they can be lol stupid and get away with it.

>>49883375
Y'know, if Hitler didn't go after the Jews and start WWII, he'd be remembered as one of the greatest men to ever live.

Crazy.

>>49881854
So I am Chaotic Evil? Good to know.

>>49885269
Not by Czechs, that's for sure.

>>49883458
Well, Gygax was a shithead then. And seemingly he also didn't now shit about "morality of nobility".

>>49881854
That's a BS though. In both parts.

You totally can care only about yourself and be neutral IF you have inhibition towards hurtinginnocents to further your needs and agendas
Otherwise, you can care much about your close ones and even more, your race, community whatever, IF you are willing to harm innocents on the way of furthering needs and agendas of yourself or those people you care about.

law vs chaos is even more contrived as it is made up of many independent parts. Spontaneousness is one of them. But there is more to it, some even questionable. Is arbitrariness lawful or is it chaotic. Honor is usually presented as ultimate "lawful" trait. Yet, paladin aside, second class that rings the "muh honor" bell is barbarian. Who explicitly cannot be lawful.

>>49883496
I always play CE as somewhat tragic characters. Being forced to struggle against compulsions to seek out immediate gratification regardless of long term consequences.

So my CE character wouldn't stab an informant in the bar for extorting extra money for their information, but he might hunt him down and murder him discretely, or anonymously tip off whoever he's spying on for the party despite the risk to the parties goals. Or his own personal risk of getting caught.

Sort of man vs. Himself, where the CE character knows he's his own worst enemy but is driven by intense passions to act in unreasonable or self destructive ways.

Of course, I talk this over with my group so they can act to try to mitigate his actions - or use them for their own ends if we're playing that kind of game.

File: 1476860720738.jpg (16KB, 357x379px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 357x379px

>It's an alignment thread

It's amazing that in 2016 we're still stuck there.

>>49881728
What's the difference between being flexible and being spontaneous in your methods? I've always had a hard time distinguishing between neutral and chaotic when the latter isn't just lolrandumb.

>>49883306
>defender of justice
>champion of rightful king against illegal usurpation

Pretty sure Robin Hood was as Lawful Good as you can get.

>>49886561
A neutral person would consider whether it's worth breaking the law when tossing up solutions for something. A chaotic person wouldn't even consider the law when looking for a solution to a problem.

>>49885269
>Y'know, if Hitler didn't go after the Jews and start WWII, he'd be remembered as one of the greatest men to ever live.
Actually, because of how incompetently the german economy was being managed, it was very likely that it would colapse on itself by 1942 or so had the war never started.

>>49881376
He only became king for the lulz, as he admitted that he had absolutely no plans for what to do with the crown once he had it and he was really just interested in killing the previous king.

>>49882169
>Anton Chigurrh
>literally deciding people's lives with a coin flip, having no obvious plan or agenda, and just generally being an inscrutable weirdo
>neutral evil

>>49883897
Because Conan prided himself on being anti-intellectual and openly contemptuous of anyone more "civilized" than himself. This became a serious problem when he became the king of a civilized nation-state and never even tried to disguise his hatred for the vast majority of his subjects, people who lived peaceful lives and benefited from the surplus food and specialization of labor that comes with civilization. If you don't hunt, steal, or murder for a living, he couldn't give two shits about you.

I always thought chaotic neutral means you do what you do not based on any moral system/personal gain, you do it based on something apart from that, like humor. People who live for the memes are chaotic neutral I thought.

Which is why it can cross over into cringey territory real fast.

>>49886057
>Irishman detected

>>49882080
I have thought about playing a cheerful and optimistic chaotic evil character who really cares for the party and will do horrible things with a smile if it helps them. Even the paladin is alright, he's just not geared to always do what's necessary, but that's what friends are for.

>>49883375
>It's like if Hitler loves his dog, he isn't evil just for murdering a bunch of Jews

Hitler very specifically didn't care about everyone. He cared about Germans, and not even all Germans. Further, he was willing to slaughter (or rather, get other people to slaughter) non-Germans by the millions in order to achieve his own aims.

Most tellingly he didn't even have a particular care about killing those Germans that *did* meet his standards if it furthered his goals. Before he ever (had) killed a single Jew, he had the Nazis intimidating and bludgeoning people in the voting boxes who wouldn't vote for the Nazi party. Then there was the Night of Long Knives...

>>49883458
It is important here to stop and note that Gygax's definitions of alignment do not match up with how D&D has defined alignment for better than 25 years now. Gygax left TSR in...I think 1985? '87? Sometime around then. The point being that he has not been an authority on alignment sine then.

>>49885236
>Conan didnt say that it was Kull the Conqueror.

Dude, no it wasn't. Conan says that to Bêlit in "Queen of the Black Coast".

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600961h.html

git gud, son.

>>49886112
Not according to D&D. Like I've said before and will say again, D&D's good/evil axis comes down to altruism verses selfishness. If you care only about yourself, that is the ultimate extent of selfishness.

>Who explicitly cannot be lawful.
Wrong, Barbarians can be lawful as of 4th and 5th Editions.

>>49886561
As another Anon said, a lawful person doesn't consider breaking the law. A neutral person considers the risks verses the rewards. A chaotic person doesn't consider them at all, excepting if there is notable consequence for transgressing them.

>>49886684
>champion of rightful king against illegal usurpation

Depends on the version of the story.

>>49887432
Frankly even making it to 1942 would have been a stretch.

>>49887977
He appears to follow some vague form of rules, but these rules seem to allow for the arbitrary murder of anyone unfortunate enough to cross paths with him. Even though he was only hired to retrieve a satchel of money, he ends up killing plenty more, notably a deputy, benign civilians, his two mooks, his old partner, his boss, and the widow of his late-nemesis. In addition, he appears to offer a coin toss to anyone he feels should have one last chance at living.

He "feels" pretty Neutral Evil, at least to me.

Another good example would be Emperor Palpatine. The Empire as a whole is fairly Lawful Evil, but Palpatine created that empire through extralegal, and indeed outright treasonous, means; and the only real rule of the Empire seemed to be "don't piss off the Emperor."

File: Feels Angry.jpg (63KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 633x758px

>>49886176
Dumb frog poster. Hate symbols aren't allowed here.

>>49890206
Palpatine is indeed NE. He wants power for himself, and everything he does is to that end. He's a supremely self-interested character.

Anton's actions benefit nobody, not even himself. He kills and torments people even when he has nothing to gain out of it. He doesn't even seem to enjoy it. He seems to behave completely at random. A NE character would have just taken the money while drawing a minimum amount of attention to himself.

>>49888059
CN means you want to create change and defy traditions even when it doesn't directly benefit you or anyone else. If the phrase "that's the way we've always done it" makes your skin crawl, you're CN.

>>49883375
Hitler poisoned Blondie. Goebbels poisoned his children.

File: 816eb30b3eb4319d6db96603cd8c980144c202c96d3d8741d4b4a3b6465ce123.jpg (77KB, 625x571px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 625x571px

>>49880921

I play CN as having legitimate mental illness such as the veteran soldier who turned to alcohol after his term of service ended, or the drifter who is scared of sleep because he woke up next to the corpse of his beloved, and noped his way down the road.

There's more to them than that, but this specifically is what makes a character CN to me.

>>49893057
>CN means you're crazy
You are part of the problem.

>>49887019
But even if you have no respect for the law there are consequences for breaking it that should be taken into consideration. So you're saying that basically all Chaotic characters are shortsighted?

>>49880807
It's almost like there's a bunch of ways to play a bunch of allignments. Lolrandom CN is just as valid as any other. Does that mean they're good for the game, or party? Probably not. Depends on the group.

>>49893057
Every edition since at least 2.5e has gone out of its way to make it absolutely clear that CN =/= insane.

>>49893242
Allow me to rephrase the other Anon.

- A Lawful person might follow the law because it's the right thing to do.
- A Neutral person might follow the law after considering whether or not it's the right thing to do verses the benefits of not following it.
- A Chaotic person might follow the law if transgressing it will make things harder for him and his, but even if he does, he'll chafe under it.

Basically, to a Chaotic person, it's not "right" or "wrong" to break or not break the law. It is strictly about benefits and drawbacks.