What are good reasons for a chaotic neutral character staying

>>50012570
pussy, money, weed

>>50012570
Because he wants to

>>50012570
Maybe he kinda likes them?

>>50012570
>daily reminder that alignments are completely shit and should be thrown out the fucking window
He was saved by the party and decided to return the favor.

He wants to get rich. The party has proven to be a good source of income.

>>50012570
they're powerful, and this is the best opportunity for advancement, both monetary and for any goals they have as an individual

>>50012570
The rest of the party is chaotic neutral

>>50012605
>He was saved by the party and decided to return the favor.

Then he'd bail as soon as he returned the favor.

>He wants to get rich. The party has proven to be a good source of income.

A chaotic neutral character will hardly commit to a life-goal so consistently as to themself down with a group. That sort of practical thinking may apply to a true neutral character.

When I choose to be chaotic neutral, I clear it up with both the rest of the group and the DM.

One great way to justify a CN character committing to a party is revenge. Have the CN character find out that the black rider with the skull helmet that murdered his family and burned down his village was the same guy that turned the other party members into orphans. That kind of passion for revenge may easily convince CN characters to travel with a group for years, or even decades.

File: ASS-U-ME.png (180KB, 445x290px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 445x290px

>>50012637
>Then he'd bail as soon as he returned the favor.
>implying Chaotic Neutrals can't forge friendships

>A chaotic neutral character will hardly commit to a life-goal so consistently as to themself down with a group.
>implying chaotic neutral characters can't have long term goals and try to reach them in a group of people

>>50012570
He was fed by the party and decided to return the flavor.

Despite being chaotic (a means to an end) he is still neutral (desire for a status quo). In the end it is determined by what constitutes as a comfortable life for that character. If the BBEG plans on ushering in an age of darkness it will in turn ruin his vacation. Joining a party to stop him for no less than to ensure he doesn't lose his deposit in the case of a demonic invasion is more than a justification.

As yourself, why would a cat follow you around?

File: amore d'armour.jpg (81KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x399px

>>50012570

Amore.

>>50012758
DELETE THIS

Giving characters a reason to stick together after an adventures is something that a lot of DMs completely forget to do. It is incredibly unnatural for most characters really. In most movies, books, and games it is usually shown in some way that characters part ways once the adventure is over. The Hobbits return to the Shire. Mad Max fucks off once the story is over. Indiana Jones goes on another adventure with new friends and allies.

Chaotic neutral characters especially will hate staying with a party forever because they value their freedom, and they don't want to be ruled over in decisions of where to go next, or who to help out. CN characters are guaranteed to fuck off if they are played right. But a good bye does not have to be a good bye forever. You have to assume that characters will go their own ways inbetween adventures, but they meet again either by chance, or because their help is called upon. You can make this more reasonable by giving the characters boons and titles for their victories. Have the duke proclaim, "from this day forth, you shall be known as the gray riders, champions of this land, and all men and women within this city's walls shall reward you with praise and hospitality."

>>50012681
>implying Chaotic Neutrals can't forge friendships

>hey, I want to move to Europe. Wanna come with?
>how could I say no to a friend? :)

Adventuring isn't like joining a tennis club.

>>50012721
>chaotic characters desire a status quo

That is the exact opposite of what chaotic characters want. Chaotic characters desire change, diversity, and freedom. If anything, their "status quo" should be that nothing ever stays the same.

>>50012721
Well, the OP asked why a CN character should stay for more than one adventure.

I think "because he likes them" or "because he wants to" is a good reason, specifically because he is chaotic neutral. part of freedom is the freedom to do what you want, even if it's the same thing again and again.

>>50012570

He's having fun.
When things get boring, he'll wander off somewhere, and they'll find him in a tavern two or three cities down the line, later.

>>50012570
Why wouldn't they?

Unless the party is specifically causign them issues or trouble, or clearly wants them out of the way, there wouldn't be any reason for them NOT to stay with the party either.

The arguments work both ways.

File: Chaotic Neutral Gang finds Helpless Girl.png (785KB, 600x1724px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 600x1724px

>>50012731
Curiosity.

>>50012839
Chaotic Neutral characters are by their nature capricious and whimsical. It will take a LOT for them to choose to be tied down with someone, friend or no. Since most adventures start with characters being complete strangers, it is pretty unlikely that a chaotic neutral will stick with a bunch of jerks for what may seem like a lifelong journey.


>>50012871
and
>>50012781
get it.

Another good way is to make the CN the brother or sister of another party character. Roma are a good example. Freedom and anti-authoritarianism may be inherent to their culture, but they won't betray or abandon their clan.
That 99% of chaotic neutral characters you play act like 1% of actual chaotic neutral characters would suggests to me that you are willing to either sacrifice a lot to convenience or you are downright lazy roleplayers.

>>50012947
I would think of it less like choosing to be tied down for a lifetime and more like a new decision each time. "hey wanna join for this adventure?" "sure"

it gets harder if the rest of the party is jerks, but in any case they did do the first adventure successfully, so why not go with what's working

>>50012570
>>hey, I want to move to Europe. Wanna come with?
>>how could I say no to a friend? :)

This sounds exactly like what a Chaotic Neutral would say.

File: 135468323457.png (167KB, 393x349px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 393x349px

>>50012791
>adventuring is totally like moving to some place and starting to live there for the rest of your life
>doesn't understand the concept of real friendship, the one that is basically as strong as family

Whatever you say guvnor

>>50012985
What you and everyone else is implying is that is what every other chaotic neutral character would do 100% of the time. In the bigger scheme of things, the CN's big life decisions would be majorly made by their friends. You are spinning this example as a whimsical decision, rather than the subordination of your own desires to those of another person.

>>50012570
Starts of for thrills/money/whatever fits, but eventually gets character development and finds a reason to fight which fits the campaign.

But the alignment system is terrible for this, as a change of beliefs or ideals is reduced to a moment where you're position on a grid changes, rather than gradual change.

Oh, silly OP. Everyone knows that Chaotic Neutral PCs instantly fall in love with the other player characters as soon as they set eyes upon each other. The rulebook more or less states that as soon as the paladin calls the thief a dirty thieving scoundrel, and as soon as he sees her fingers in another merchant's pockets, he will cut them off, the chaotic neutral character decalres eternal friendship and they exchange colored bracelets.
The party forges an unbreakable bond once they master their first battle. The chaotic neutral may have fought with others before, but watching a bunch of novices barely manage to batter a wolf will make them never want to leave their side again! Such an experiences forges a deep and mysterious friendship that surpasses all differences in ideologies and alignments.

>>50012570
Lawful/Chaotic = Responsible/Impulsive
Good/Evil = Charitable/Selfish

Daily reminder CE is the lolrandom alignment.

CN doesn't just act on impulse like CE, they have motivations that drive them beyond their immediate reach and arguably it would most likely be to a larger ideal than they could reasonably attain with their lack of raw ambition.

File: consider.png (413KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 800x450px

>>50012570
CN=/=CStupid
CNs can have friends, bonds, sense of duty and responsibility. Being CN just means that you love freedom and can have mood swings, it doesn't meen that you should be the embodiment of fucking chaos and randomness.

Remember when at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean Jack Sparrow said, "you are my best friend now, Orlando Bloom. Let's stay together and have adventures until the end of time."

Remember when at the end of Mad Max 2, Mad Max says, "I platonically love you, strangers I helped out. I will live with you from now on."

>>50012570
Because they're on adventures. The chaotic neutral character doesn't have to have ADD, he or she just has to be very interested in being free and unrestrained, and not particularly inclined to be malicious or altruistic. That's a pretty easy archetype to make work for a travelling adventurer, plying their skills for coin as they explore the world. And if they can have a group of friends to share that adventure with, then why not?

File: !!!.jpg (37KB, 480x477px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x477px

>>50012570
My Chaotic Neutral orc barbarian is best friends with one of the party members and pretty much goes wherever his buddy goes. He still wanders off often, and since he's the main source of damage the party often has to go looking for him.

There was a riot going on at one point in the city and the barbarian completely disappeared into the crowd. They found him a few blocks over taking advantage of the mayhem by having stolen a fancy hat from a nearby clothing store and stuffing his face with as many steaks and hams could from the butcher shop.

>>50013137
>And if they can have a group of friends to share that adventure with, then why not?

If you travel with a group, it is inherent that you have to place your own needs and desires below that of others, at least some of the time, but really most of the time. Adventuring with a group is intrinsically connected with the idea of restraining yourself. A CN may very well do that for one, two, or three adventures. But staying with the same group of people for several campaigns without a break? That is pretty implausible.

>>50012990
>literally move across countries and even continents all the time
>is not the same thing as moving somewhere

>>50013148
If your character has low charisma and wisdom, I could totally buy that.

>>50013189
>it is inherent that you have to place your own needs and desires below that of others
Why below? Generally, even if there's a de facto "leader", parties are a group of equals sharing the spoils. Obviously not being evil requires that you sometimes give up things you want, but in this case, it's to get other things you want, like friendship, or gold, or surviving your adventure. You're forgetting that the fact that they're neutral on the good-evil spectrum means they aren't completely selfish, overwhelming all their other desires.

>>50013233
Low Intelligence too. He's a lot of fun to roleplay as.

>>50012570
My alignment does not dictate my actions, my actions dictate my alignment.

Thread locked.

File: archer.jpg (57KB, 500x889px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x889px

>>50013189
>it's fun
>he has a friend/s in the party
>constant threat and cool shit to do and see
>dosh
>the party consists of murderhobos and other fun guys to be around
>pussy
It's just you being restrictive about your perception of a characte, m8

>>50013259
I imagine him like a child that always walks off in the mall, and when mom comes to get him he gets all excited and tells her what he's done. When she says they decide to go into a dungeon, he's all, "a dungeon? Oh, goodie!" like she said "ice cream."

>>50012570
He's bored, they're interesting

>>50013247
>parties are a group of equals sharing the spoils

That's the point, fucko. In a group of ten, you'll have your will 10% of the time.

>>50012570
Because they present him with the best opportunity for cash and kicking people's cunt in.

>>50013295
If that is your reason, then your CN will want to fuck off really bad after a while. People are only interesting so long, and after a year or so of travelling, the character will be jonesing for novelty, especially where there is a whole WORLD of interesting creatures to hang out with.

>>50013306
>you'll have your will 10% of the time
Then how does that separate a chaotic neutral character from a lawful neutral or true neutral character.

>>50013345
> I know these people and they have proven themselves trustworthy and reliable traveling companions in a world where literally everything is trying to kill us, but I'm going to fuck off because BORED

>>50013347
Lawful characters will support established hierarchies and decision-making processes, unless they are at odds with their ideology. True neutral characters will only mind subordinating themselves to hierarchies unless it causes them harm or great discomfort, or it somehow goes against their ideology if they are religious or something. Chaotic neutral characters serve their freedom and passion foremost. They are the ones will who actively resent, resist, and rebel against group decisions, even if they are in the extreme minority.

>>50013375
>where literally everything is trying to kill us

That is factually untrue. There will be plenty of good characters in your setting, unless you specifically write it to consist almost entirely of cutthroats and scoundrels. You are also committing the mistake of subordinating the desires of the CN to practicality. Saying a CN shouldn't do something he really wants to do because it is practical is like saying a good character should do or allow something good because it's practical.

>>50013285
Lol, his reaction was essentially like he was a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar when they found him, and that's not far off from how he is about dungeons. He loves proving how strong he is to other people and there's no better way to do that than to go fighting in dungeons full of deadly monsters.

>>50013398
You're totally right, chaotic characters cannot ever be practical at any time, ever

>>50013438
Nice strawman.

>>50013446
No, nice paraphrasing

>>50013450
The point is that a CN won't choose to do something convient when otherwise there is something he wants to do out of passion.

Lawful characters act primarily out of law and order.
Neutral characters act primarily out of practicality.
Chaotic characters act primarily out of desire.

>>50013446
That was a valid poin tho. Being chaotic neutral doesn't mean that your character is an autistic retard

>>50013377
>Chaotic neutral characters serve their freedom and passion foremost.
But not to any ends. If you follow your own passion to any ends, you end up sacrificing the needs of others to get them, and end up in the evil side of things. The fact that a CN character is neutral means they care deeply about their own freedom, but are at the very least, limiting themselves from doing things that actively fuck other people over.

On top of that, I have to refer you to my original comment: it's an adventure. They are following their passion for adventure. And you're gonna get more freedom in a small group of explorers than you will in any other hierarchy to be found. What's the alternative, go into dark chasms alone? Have to make a new group of friends every time, even though you're attached to these guys? What you're saying makes no sense.

>>50013499
Chaotic characters are not base animals, slaves to their immediate desires and passions. They're a lot more LIKELY to give into them than neutral or lawful characters, but that doesn't mean they're completely incapable of anticipating shit, looking ahead, and making plans. Fucking off into obvious danger because you're bored is Chaotic Stupid.

>>50013499
No, it means that CN just values his freedom and has a pretty nonrestrictive moral compass. It doesn't that his entire character is "muh freedom and muh ambition". The fucked can do whatever the fuck he wants, and he may find that adventuring with his new "family" is what he desires.

>>50012570
It's usually becasue the character likes money, killing people, or both. CN is Murderhobo: The Alignment. It's why many on /tg/ dislike them.

>>50012570

Why do you think it's weird for someone to remain with a group of friends he has a long history with? Chaotic doesn't mean lolrandumb, a Chaotic character still has normal emotional attachments.

>>50013524
You're debunking claims nobody made. Of course a CN may go with a party into a dungeon. But if he gets bored with the party, and the desire to be on their own grows bigger, than the decision to leave becomes more obvious. In a world full of sell-swords, brigands, and adventurers, it isn't so unreasonable to believe they will meet someone else to travel with if they part ways.

>>50013541
>he may find that adventuring with his new "family" is what he desires.

Why do you always resort to schmaltzy dogshit to justify why your characters would do things they obviously wouldn't do? Did you watch too much yu-gi-oh?

>>50013562
What I'm saying is that Chaotic characters are not fucking elementals (or whatever the equivalent for the alignment planes is.) Yeah, they value independence and freedom, but they can ALSO value reliability, familiarity, and friendship. It's just that they value the former more than the latter.

>>50013136
>Remember when at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean Jack Sparrow said, "you are my best friend now, Orlando Bloom. Let's stay together and have adventures until the end of time."

I remember when he and Gibbs and the rest of the crew he recruited sailed off to continue having adventures while Will and Elizabeth were the only party members to stay behind. Continuing to have crazy adventures is the default mode of behavior for a Chaotic character. It's Lawful people who need an excuse not to settle down and become captain of the town guard after they save a village.

>>50013583
>It's just that they value the former more than the latter.

Yeah, and that is why they will choose to part ways.

Listen, like someone else said above, if a character leaves, they don't have to leave forever. But a character deciding to stay with their """friends""" for the rest of their life, especially if they value their own desires and ambitions above everything else, it's patently ridiculous. Have them have a chance meeting when they next adventure starts. Have a common signal to send when they hear of another adventure. There are messengers. There are even spells for that. Be creative. What you are doing is give shitty reasons that prove you don't understand what it means to be chaotic.

>>50013499
Chaotic characters aren't required to be short-sighted morons. You don't get to have everything you want, and Chaotic characters know this, and it is perfectly plausible that their odds of actually successfully satisfying a desire on their own might be low enough that giving up the friends they've made isn't worth it.

>>50013627
Nobody's saying they stick around forever. Show me one post in this thread that made that claim. We're talking about a few months to a year, roughly

>>50013676
>OP: "why would a CN stay for more than one campaign?"
>you: "FUCK YOU OP MY CN TOTALLY WOULD STAY FOR A WHOLE CAMPAIGN!"

???

>>50013706
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that one campaign is literally forever

>>50013632
Chaotic neutrals will align their desires with practicality if possible, but a chaotic neutral will do something impractical if the desire is big enough. Chaotic neutral characters are inherently disruptive for this very reason. If a chaotic neutral character gets bored with a party, they will leave sooner or later.

>>50013739
So what you're saying is that if someone either intentionally or thoughtlessly builds a CN character whose interests do not particularly align with the party, they probably won't stick around. This is technically true, but it is also true of every other alignment, so it's a vacuous point.

>>50013775
And if you go back, you'll notice that this chain of argument goes back to a person who gave a shitty interst for their CN staying with a party. Why are we arguing?

>>50013798
It's the internet. We have a quota.

>>50013594
Jack Sparrow also is the captain of his ship. He literally doesn't have to listen to anyone but himself.

>>50012570

Is it possible to front load the character's motivations? I'd like to see them using the group as a way to get out of other obligations, like a marriage or an obligation to something like the courts or royalty.

>>50012721
In a high level campaign I once played a nuetral evil character that worked with the party because the last Friday of every month was poker night. He was friends with the bbeg who had become to busy for it since he started this whole global conquest nonsense.

>>50013852
Great. What about Gibbs and the rest of the crew? They're pirates, most of them are Chaotic.

>>50013868
>>50013899
I've had this idea for a neutral/evil character party, where one of the characters is a neutral evil prince of sorts who is expected to follow a tradition of chivalry, while the other party members are sworn retainers who are either true neutral or lawful neutral, who have sworn their unbreakable allegiance to the prince without question.
The prince will want to protect his image to not lose his claim, while the neutrals tend to look the other way when he does something questionable either don't want to lose their status and cushy job, or because they gave their word.
I like playing unconventional character, but I get the impression a lot of /tg/ players don't realize how unconventional they are.

>>50013136
>Remember when at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean Jack Sparrow said, "you are my best friend now, Orlando Bloom. Let's stay together and have adventures until the end of time."
That's more of an argument against why more lawful characters would stay on adventures for long periods of time, rather than eventually settling down. Jack did still go on adventures after that, and yeah, some of them were on his his group at times, but his desire for freedom and adventure led him to stay with a group of like-minded people for more time than the man who was only on the adventure for a specific goal. For a chaotic neutral character whose sole personal goal is journeying over that new horizon, going on multiple adventures makes more sense, because they're on the first adventure for something tied intrinsically to that adventure's goal, adventure is the goal.

>>50013910
A charismatic leader gets them to follow him. It's not stretch to imagine that they just feel they're best off with Jack.

>>50013987
Well, yes, that's my entire point. You don't need any particular explanation to explain why a CN character would want to stick with a group they like that is continuing to go on dangerous, exciting, and profitable adventures. That is how they do. What needs explanation is why a Lawful character who'd prefer to open a bakery is doing that.

>>50012570
He's got no reason not to
He feels like following them
He has a common goal

>>50013910
Actually, most pirates would be considered neutral or neutral evil. Most joined pirate ships because it was the most profitable thing to do. In fact, life on pirate ships was often highly regulated.

>>50012791
That's how I moved to San Antonio.

>>50014047
Lawful neutral monks are on a pilgrimage of self-perfection. Other lawful neutral characters may also choose to follow another type of journey of acquiring power: mages that want to unlock the secrets of the universe, clerics that want to get in touch with their gods, and so on. Lawful characters may also pursue wealth, or view fighting as their profession.

>>50014098
We're talking about movie pirates, though.

>>50014175
Honestly, Gibbs seems like a regular old neutral guy to me. Pirates may also not necessarily choose to stay aboard a ship under the same captain forever. They will jump ship when a battle is going badly, or they will stay behind and pursue another activity after their journey is over. I don't think piracy was a lifelong committment for most pirates.

>>50012570
>What are good reasons for a chaotic neutral character staying with an adventuring party for several adventures and campaigns?

The party's actions incidentally benefit the character, or the character shares some mutual long-term goal with the party.

Probably already said. I'm too lazy to read over every reply.

>>50013965
Orlando Bloom isn't a lawful character, though. Rather, he's chaotic good or neutral good.

>>50014305
Used the term "more lawful" because of that. As in more lawful than Jack, the pirate. This is part of what led him to attempt at least to settle down with Elizabeth, and back into his life at the end of Pirates one, leading into Pirates 2, where he was dragged back into the fray to protect the life they were trying to make together. I would go with Neutral Good, honestly.

The point is, the Chaotic Neutral character is drawn to the adventure not just because of a specific goal, but because the nature of an adventure contains with it an element of freedom hard to find elsewhere, making it very easy for them to continue with new goals after one is met, because if gives them more of that rush of the new and unexpected.

Why would a CN character stick with a group over multiple adventures?

>Friendships
>Adventure
>Gets richer/more powerful by sticking with the people he's already bonded with

CN characters are motivated by change and adventure, along with personal likes. If it's a group they enjoy being around, there's no reason NOT to stick with them as long as something new and exciting is happening.

>>50014408
You definitely have a point, since neutral and lawful characters are definitely more associated with homeliness and steadiness, but I can easily imagine someone who is lawful or neutral also enjoying adventure, even if the inherent thrill of it will often be secondary to the goal to be achieved. A character who is homeless due to their backstory may especially be drawn to being on the move and finding new adventures to go on.

>>50012570
literally shits and giggles
isn't that all that motivates a chaotic neutral?

>>50014702
>Jay, why did you work in a dead end job for the last fifty years while supporting your abusive wife in a dead-end marriage?
>shits and giggles

CNs are arguably the master manipulators. they have the greatest range of reasoning to create situations that may benefit themselves, torment others, turn two individuals against each other, create personal amusement, eleviate his boredom, and even be for no reason at all.

Allignments at their best can be a way to act in character to support a believable narrative, at their worst to derail the DM.

>>50012570
as it hasn't been mentioned yet, how about
>the PCs are trapped in a complex and the DM refuses to kill the CN PC off because he hates everyone

>>50012570
He realizes the party is an idiotic gathering of murder happy retards. He consistently directs them towards people he wants killed pretending it will help some overarching goal for them.

A chaotic character doesn't need a reason. Adventuring is a natural lifestyle for a chaotic character. A simple refusal to settle down in civilized society makes sure of that.

Rather, tell me why your lawful character doesn't just settle down for a normal life in a civilized society the first chance they get.

>>50019085
>why doesn't the paladin just abandon his holy pilgrimage to protect the innocent?

>>50012570
Same reasons you keep any trouble-alignment in the party, personal connections.
>The evil wizard who wants to overthrow and enslave everyone in the kingdom
>But his childhood friend that he swore a life-debt to is in the party

>The anti-paladin who wants to kill a specific good god
>You guys are the fastest and most reliable way to grow in power, and I kind of like you.

>The chaotic neutral half-ling who steals every-goddamn thing
>He's extremely lonely and immediately forged a deep connection to everyone in the party.

People bitch about alignments but then fail to see them for the lines-in-the-sand they are. I've had paladins skirt the edges of falling and evil wizards go out of their way to save friends. But a majority of the time, these people act within their alignment. It's the moments that force them our of their comfort zone, out of their default mental state, that make good role playing.

Darth Vader giving his life to save Luke, the ents marching on Isenguard, Dumbledor's plot to sacrifice Harry from the beginning. It's these jarring deviations that make a character interesting and moments memorable.

In my experience chaotic neutral just gives players an excuse to go full retard and I've seen DM's use that to fuck the party six ways from Sunday.

>>50019332
>It's the moments that force them our of their comfort zone

Yeah, except your green text is not describing heat-of-the-moment decisions, but campaign-spanning choices. If you have a party consisting of Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, there will come a point where they realize the other is Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler. You are describing dynamics that may work short-term, but they are bound to be doomed. If this were any work of fiction, you'd shit on the contrivances until there is no tomorrow.

>>50019332
>You guys are the fastest and most reliable way to grow in power, and I kind of like you.

>You're my best friend, Duke Rapington of Murderburg.

He actually likes his party and thinks they are his only true friends/family he has while not giving much of a shit about anything or anyone else and/or is insane.

The charecter is a lone wolf kind of person but being with the party proved lucrative and effective for his own good and so he decided to stay. Perhaps slowly growing fond of his new companions.

The party is out to save the world, and "he" is part of that world.

The charecter is self loathing and considers his very presence a curse. The party managed somehow to make him angry enough to become a member which is his way of "cursing the assholes for what they did". Helping them survive just lengthends the time they have to suffer him.

>>50019332
Evil characters, by their very nature, have shallow relationships, and friendships especially. An evil character will have qualms about whether he should sell his friends into slavery, where a neutral character will be indecisive about risking his life. Being "evil" does not merely describe a character's moral identity, but also their emotional experience.

>>50019562
>evil characters cannot form deep relationships
The fuck you smoking? Being evil doesn't mean being a sociopath.

>>50019804
It literally does, though.

>>50019562
>He doesn't know about Hobgoblins
You can't say that all evil creatures can't have strong bonds.

>>50019914
Hobgoblins value each other for status and martial prowess, but they don't really show affection for each other.

>>50012570

Because he wants to and who are you to deny his wants!?

>>50012637

You're a fucking moron, you know that?

Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean 'pants on head retarded'. Sure, a crazed hermit is Chaotic Neutral. But a wandering ronin? Your archetypical drifter? He's Chaotic (He doesn't follow a Lord, and has no connections) and Neutral (He takes any job as long as it pays.)

It's why Lawful Good can mean 'Bioware protagonist' or 'holy inquisitor'.

File: MixedAlignmentsCN.png (79KB, 447x428px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 447x428px

>>50012570
>What are good reasons for a chaotic neutral character staying with an adventuring party for several adventures and campaigns?
>Good reasons, please.
Thankfully, other have said it already, that gives me hope.
But I’ll say it too.

A chaotic neutral character can have all sorts of motivations, goals, and reasons for what they do, just like every other character.
Without knowing the character, we can’t possibly give reasons.
The character in my example had nobody else and nowhere else to go.
She was tempted a few times to leave when the group courted certain death, but eventually felt a strong bond to her friends, despite still being a capricious and chaotic soul.

In short, a chaotic neutral character’s reasons are their own.
A reason that could be called a “Chaotic Neutral” reason would be any of the capricious ones already mentioned, not that you’d consider them good reasons.

File: ShallowMyAss.jpg (113KB, 1360x519px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1360x519px

>>50019562
>Evil characters, by their very nature, have shallow relationships, and friendships especially.
No. You're thinking of cartoon evil.
Evil characters can have complex and deeply emotional relationships.
Although, typically it's not with many people, just a select few.

>>50019874
>Being evil literally means being a sociopath.
Like the post above, you are thinking of one small subset of evil and myopically restricting all evil into it.


I'm not going to spend my night debating this nor the relevance of pic related.
Just know that there is more to evil than you suspect, and that you should work on expanding your view.

>>50012570
They've fallen in love with one of the members of the party, or else an NPC whom the party works for.

>>50012570
He's not following them. They're following him.

>>50012570

>Good reasons, please.

After a long journey to recover the Orb of Power from the evil Necrolich, the party decides to stop at a tavern to celebrate their victory. They wake up the next morning with no memories of the previous night. The party's sorcerer looks over the wreckage of the tavern and asks "Dude, where my Orb of Power?"

>>50012570
Because it benefits him

Same reason cn does anything

>>50013217
>implying adventurers aren't like nomads who just go from place to place with their tribe

I get that you're retarded, but the CN guy would clearly be more adverse to settling down somewhere with the party, instead of sticking with them while adventuring. He'd be the one that just up and says
>ok, you fags retire: I'mma continue adventuring. Cya nerda

>>50013706
>campaigns last forever
Youjustwentfullretard.png

>>50020788
>You're thinking of cartoon evil.

Then there are a whole lot of real life cartoon characters.

>>50020788
>Walt White
>Evil

Evil characters lack compassion and will kill anyone to get to their goals. Walt White only ever killed people who were dangerous to him and to his allies. All of them were criminals, and most were murderers. Walt White wouldn't be evil in DnD terms. He'd be true neutral or chaotic neutral.
And I haven't watched The Sopranos.

>>50012791
Moving to Europe on a whim sounds extremely chaotic neutral to me.

>>50022885
>Then there are a whole lot of real life cartoon characters.
Yes. Yes there are.

>>50022917
>Evil characters lack compassion and will kill anyone to get to their goals
Lacks compassion =/= utterly devoid of any shred of compassion
Walter was cheerfully whistling after dissolving a child's corpse that he was an accessory to the murder of.
He lacks some compassion.

"Will kill anyone to get to their goals" =/= will kill literally anyone wildly at the drop of hat.
Walter White only ever killed people who were dangerous to him and to his allies because he was Careful Evil.
Killing is a last resort for a whole variety of reasons, not all of them are compassionate.
Even then, he was quick to consider having Badger killed when he got arrested.

Tony Soprano was a mob boss. He killed for money and power but loved his family.He was often conflicted.

>>50013274
...Which of the characters has been edited into this scene?

>>50022985
>Walter White only ever killed people who were dangerous to him and to his allies because he was Careful Evil.

You haven't proved that he is evil. Hurting your enemies and treating your friends well is neutral behavior. He directly hurt the innocent, either. We are talking about a system where if a character acts within their alignment, they will not feel any remorse. An evil character who risks his life for anyone, even for a friend, may feel disgusted with himself, or be resentful or even hateful to his friend. Most alignment descriptions with authority that mention evil characters and family and friends will mention that they are willing to betray anyone. They may simply be more reluctant to sell out friends and family.

>>50020788
Evil is stupid and so are you. When you actually look at "evil" characters, they all boil down to a handful of specific characteristics that you can't really argue constitute evilness. Pride, greed, mental illness. Whatever.

>>50023066
Here's one characteristic you can't argue with:

>psychopathy

>>50023037
>We are talking about a system where if a character acts within their alignment, they will not feel any remorse. An evil character who risks his life for anyone, even for a friend, may feel disgusted with himself, or be resentful or even hateful to his friend.
This doesn't sound familiar, or particularly right.

Walter White murdered people rather than give up on his empire.
Which was often an option.

>>50023109
>Walter White murdered people rather than give up on his empire.

When did he kill anyone who was innocent? Or who was not an immediate threat to his life?

>>50019332
>Darth Vader giving his life to save Luke

The guy who made his daughter watched as he destroyed her home planet and everyone on it? The guy who cut off his son's hand without remorse to make him join his cause? The guy who literally switched alignments in the scene you are describing?

>>50012570
It depends on his motivations.

>>50022917
Lacking compassion is a mental disorder, not a requirement of immorality.

>>50023215
>immorality

Neutral characters are immoral, too. Being evil means that you don't have compassion.

>>50023162
so only wanton, unthinking murder is evil? you is dumb.

>>50023162
>When did he kill anyone who was innocent? Or who was not an immediate threat to his life?
Not a lot of innocents on the show, but I'll try.
He effectively killed Jane Margolis and definitely let her die.
He poisoned a child, Brock, and we are left to guess whether he was really arrogant enough to be certain the dosage wasn't lethal or if he was just willing to risk it.
Neither were directly threatening him, just the best avenue to get what he wanted.

>>50023364
No, but murder at any expense to others if it benefits you is evil.

>>50023374
Manipulating others for your benefit is a chaotic neutral action. He poisoned Brock because he knew it wouldn't cause him permanent harm. The scene with Jane is complicated: refusing to save someone is not the same as murdering them, and from his perspective, Jane was ruining Jesse's life.

File: ffvi__gau_by_tiggerfactory.png (231KB, 500x692px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 500x692px

Meet Gau.

Gau is a wild child. His insane father blamed him as a toddler for the death of his mother in childbirth. As a tot, his father took him to the edge of civilization and dumped him into a very magical place called The Veldt. Gau survived out there among the wild animals and tough encounters into his teens, knowing very little human contact outside occasionally peeping in at a local village that knew him by reputation and sightings, like a yeti. In his teen years, he encounters people with causes and back stories and worries and cares.

Gau has no motivations. He has no ulterior motives. When he meets the party, he listens to their stories and is moved by their passion and needs.

Gau does not care about the overarching plot. Gau does not care about the fate of the world. Gau generally does not care about politics, morality, anything. Gau is an animal, and he'll adapt to whatever garbage the planet or civilization throws at him.

Gau follows the people he meets wherever they go because they are his friends. The makers of Final Fantasy 6 even admitted Gau plays no crucial role in the story, he's there only because he's havin' a laff, mate. He doesn't even hate or like Kefka, the Empire or the goddesses. He does. not. care. He tags along because there's nothing anyone could do to stop him. Even the guy that suplexed a god damned train didn't have the means nor the heart to tell him he couldn't come along.

Gau is an animal, and as such, he is beyond morality.

>>50023462
>Gau is an animal, and as such, he is beyond morality.

And that would make him neutral, not chaotic.

>>50023498
He's also a human.
The neutral part is the animal. The chaotic is the human.

Otherwise he'd just be neutral-good.

>>50023437
>Manipulating others for your benefit is a chaotic neutral action.
It can be.

>He poisoned Brock because he knew it wouldn't cause him permanent harm.
How can you be sure? That's just what he told Jesse.

>The scene with Jane is complicated: refusing to save someone is not the same as murdering them, and from his perspective, Jane was ruining Jesse's life.
Jane told Jesse that it was important not to lie on your back or you could vomit and choke to death.
Walter rolled her onto her back.
She vomited and choked to death.
Walter watched it happen and did nothing.
Walter might not have known he was endangering her life when he rolled her, but his actions killed her and he let it happen.
Accidentally unplugging someone's life support and then intentionally not plugging it back in is pretty close to murder.

>>50023534
No, he's just neutral.

>>50023066
>Evil is stupid and so are you.
The concept of evil is not stupid.
I, however, am engaged in debate over good and evil on 4chan, again.
So your point against me stands.

>When you actually look at "evil" characters, they all boil down to a handful of specific characteristics that you can't really argue constitute evilness. Pride, greed, mental illness. Whatever.
This is not really wrong, but muddles the point.
Being greedy or whatever isn't evil. Doing harm in pursuit of greed is. See below.
Interesting note: In the Complete Book of Villains, one of the motivations for villainy is Love.

Every time Good and Evil comes up, there is some jackass trying to assert that evil doesn’t exist.
I am going to extend to you the courtesy you did not extend to me and assume you are not one of those idiots thoughtlessly clinging like a desperate lamprey to the idea that they are too enlightened for plebeian concepts of morality.

Evil exists. And I will break it down simply:
>Breaking Down Bad
Harming is harmful. Yes?
Helping is helpful. Yes?
Sometimes you help by harming and sometimes you harm by helping. Yes?
This gets complicated. Yes?

If something is more helpful than harmful, it is Good.
If something is more harmful than helpful, it is Bad.
If something is intentionally more helpful than harmful, it is still Good.
If something is intentionally more harmful than helpful, it is Evil.

Sorting out what is more harmful than helpful is very complicated, involves differing degrees of help and harm, and results in threads saying that the Joker is less Evil than Batman.
But saying Evil doesn’t exist is essentially saying that nobody is ever intentionally more harmful than helpful.

>>50023540
>How can you be sure? That's just what he told Jesse.

He poisoned him with a plant that shared superficial symptoms of ricin without being actually dangerous. The show all but explicitly stated this.

>Walter rolled her onto her back

Not intentionally. She also only threw up because she was doing drugs. The same drugs she convinced Jesse to take. Not only is this at best negligient murder, he also had a strong reason to see her as a dangerous person who was bringing harm to his son. In terms of what she meant to him, she wasn't really innocent. In addition, she was a contributing factor in her own death.

>>50023599
>He poisoned him with a plant that shared superficial symptoms of ricin without being actually dangerous. The show all but explicitly stated this.
Nope.

>without being actually dangerous.
Try "without being 100% lethal like ricin"

>The innocuous-looking lily of the valley (Convallaria majalis) has a darker side. People who eat any part of this lily may experience an irregular heart rate, confusion, digestive upset, diarrhea or vomiting. The California Poison Control System notes that lily of the valley and gloriosa lily can cause serious problems or death if eaten. If someone has eaten one of these lilies, take immediate action and call your doctor at once to prevent death or serious illness from these plants.


>Not intentionally.
>This is at best negligent murder
I said as much.

>>50023653
Aspirin can kill you. Walt is a genius chemist. I'm pretty sure he knows what the non-lethal dosage is.

Also, negligient murder is far from the same thing as murder. Being lazy while building a house that later collapses is negligient murder. Indirectly killing people through negligience is a neutral action.

>>50023701
>Walt is a genius chemist. I'm pretty sure he knows what the non-lethal dosage is.
I'm just curious how he weighed the boy exactly.

>Also, negligient murder is far from the same thing as murder. Being lazy while building a house that later collapses is negligient murder. Indirectly killing people through negligience is a neutral action.
But that coupled with coldly and calculatingly watching the people die under the collapsed house you built, kind of shades it a bit, don't you think?
Naw, you're right. Everyone watches people die if it serves there interest. Hell, let's elect him Pope.

>>50023746
He can make a reasonable estimate based on the boy's age and height. Doctors don't have to adjust your medication for every few pounds of variation.

>>50012570
>Good reasons
Maybe he just really likes them.

OR because he feels like it.

>>50023746
>But that coupled with coldly and calculatingly watching the people die under the collapsed house you built, kind of shades it a bit, don't you think?

So we are talking about scenarios that aren't relevant to anything people have said now?
Walt didn't just let anyone die. He let the junkie who made his son take heroin die. Refusing to extend help to a dangerous enemy is a neutral action. Hell, even outright harming her would have still been well within the neutral spectrum. The goddess of revenge is chaotic neutral, after all.

>>50023768
This could work if wandering with someone was a single decision. But in reality staying with the party is a decision the character has to re-affirm every day, every week, every month, and so on. The chaotic neutral character may be tempted to leave at every argument, and every time he doesn't have his way. He will be tempted to leave when something strikes his fancy that he can't or doesn't want to do with the party, like joining a band of mercenaries, or becoming a sailor, or a pirate. You have to consider that your character does not decide to stay with the party just once, but at the very least after every single adventure. Why does a character who is inherently whimsical make the same choices over and over again?

File: o-POPE-HEISENBERG-BRYAN-CRANSTON-570.jpg (133KB, 570x872px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 570x872px

>>50023790
>He let the junkie who made his son take heroin die. Refusing to extend help to a dangerous enemy is a neutral action. Hell, even outright harming her would have still been well within the neutral spectrum.
All that wrong.
You know what? I give up.
I made my point here >>50023540 and here >>50023374

If you're going to call Jane a dangerous enemy, pretend poisoning children is fine, and ignore any evil elements to anything Walter White ever did, I think we're done here.
Enjoy your new religious icon.

>>50023836
You're thinking "evil" in real life terms, not in DnD terms. We are talking about a world where a character may be seen as lawful neutral for supporting oppressive regimes.
Jane IS a dangerous enemy from his perspective. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise. Hell, you haven't even tried disputing it. The basic ethics of the neutral alignment is: be kind to yourself, be kind to your allies, be harsh to your enemies.

this thread is basically saying'

"CHAOTIC NEUTRAL CAN ONLY EVER BE CHAOTIC STUPID, ANY EVIL CHARACTER IS STUPID EVIL, AND LG? MORE LIKE STUPID GOOD"

Basically you are viewing the alignment matrix as hard lines. Which is dumb Because people don't work like that. That's not how actually characters function. Everyone wavers a bit from time to time. Nobody actually exists in this world that could be described as 'chaotic neutral'

Stop using alignment grids. If you can't at least don't treat them like ironclad GODS, they're a quick insight into a character's outlook, not LITERALLY THE ONLY THING THAT DEFINES THEM

>>50023836
>He sees little value in matters of diplomacy and politics, considering the pursuits of his divine peers as frivolous at best. The Lord in Iron is considered brash and impulsive; he takes what he wants, by force if necessary, and answers any direct opposition to his will with violence.

This is describing a chaotic neutral deity.

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Gorum


>This frog-like shapechanging sorcerer is obsessed with vengeance, and prefers gifts of poison or ranged magic to allow him to carry out vindictive murder.

This is describing a chaotic neutral creature.

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Calistria

Letting someone you detest die, even if you are partly responsible, is a perfectly acceptable neutral action in terms of DnD and Pathfinder.

>>50023933
Why are you picking a specific God and creature?
Seems like cherrypicking.
But, oh well
>*shrugs*

>>50023865
>You're thinking "evil" in real life terms, not in DnD terms.
Okay.
Isn't poison use evil in editions previous to 5e?
Not familiar enough with 5e and alignment to nail him down using that edition.
But, oh well.
>See previous shrugs

>>50024015
It's not cherry-picking. The rules specifically state that these gods and their actions are chaotic neutral. Not all chaotic neutral characters act that way, but if characters act like them, they act chaotically, not evilly. If you said all bears were brown, and I showed you a polar bear, I wouldn't be cherry-picking bears.

>>50024015
I believe poisons were only ever a no-no for lawful characters, or lawful good characters especially.

>>50024048
Trying to follow the analogy to where I said the analogous thing to "all bears are brown".
Not sure what you're talking about.

But if you want cite that a character isn't evil, you need to disprove that, not prove that some other CN characters do things you think are vaguely similar.

Citing an authoritative alignment description that refers to poisoning children and negligent murder would do it.

>>50024069
I remember it as evil, found a description of poison in 5e as it "not being considered evil as in previous editions."
I don't actually use alignment restrictions much at all, so I am hardly a RAW expert.

>>50024118
The old argument over, "Kill a guy with a sword? Fine. Kill a with a poisoned sword? Evil!"

>>50024090
Errm, the page describe even intentional murder and using poison as chaotic neutral actions. And in the end of the day, you can say that Walt poisoned a kid all you want, but the evidence suggests that there was no intent to actually let the child die. He involved Brock in his personal scheme. You know, trickery and manipulation. The domains of Calistria, a chaotic neutral god.

>>50024069
Poisons were considered evil in 2e, and forbidden for paladins of any alignment in 3e. From then on, whenever a poison was "evil" or not depended on how much unwarranted suffering it caused

>>50024118
http://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg026.pdf

Page 23 (25 in the PDF).

>>50024143
>you can say that Walt poisoned a kid all you want
Because he did

>but the evidence suggests that there was no intent to actually let the child die.
I don't think he cared if the kid lived or died, the apparent ricin poisoning was enough for his needs.

>He involved Brock in his personal scheme. You know, trickery and manipulation. The domains of
You are bad at arguing logically.

But anyway...

>>50024146
This anon cited that it depends on the edition.
Which is a good enough answer for me.

I knew WW was evil with the cheerful whistling, but I'm just not sure how D&D would track that.

>>50024169
Another answer to the poison question.

Also if we use this as an alignment description, all we have to do is show Walter White helping those in need and it would prove that he is chaotic neutral not chaotic evil.
I can't think of anyone besides his immediate family that he helped when they were in need.

>>50024263
Helping the needy is not a requirement for being neutral. It is an option, but not a requirement. I don't think there was ever a situation where there was a person on the show who was needy who Walt did not distrust, dislike, or who otherwise was at odds with his own plans. However, he did consider the option of letting that kid go who tried to murder him early on.

>>50024221
>I knew WW was evil with the cheerful whistling

How so? He did not murder the kid, and would have refused to do so if he had had the chance. Indifference to things that don't concern you is the epitome of true neutral behavior.

>>50024323
>Helping the needy is not a requirement for being neutral. It is an option, but not a requirement.
No, but it would disprove him being CE.

At the beginning, he cut the crust off that guys sandwich.
At the end, he would have killed him before they left the desert.
Character progression is something found in characters (evil and otherwise) with depth.

>>50024337
Your sociopathic inclinations are limiting you from seeing the obvious.
Cheerfully whistling after dissolving a murdered child is not "middle of the road" behavior.

>>50020788
>Evil characters can have complex and deeply emotional relationships.

And you pick Walt White as an example? That guy's "love" is possessive and suffocating to the extreme. You're sort of proving the point that you can't integrate an evil character into a party harmoniously. Hell, the second edition rulebook even explicitly stated that if your evil characters get along fine, you are playing the alignment wrong.

>>50024396
An above post said that "vindictive murder" is middle of the road behavior, so?

>>50024396
Here's what the show's creator said about that:

>I think the interesting thing about Walter White to me is in that moment, when he says, "It's a terrible thing what happened to this child," I think he means it. I don't think he's simply lying to Jesse to get Jesse to do the things that he wants him to do, although there's certainly an element of that. But when those moments arise in Walt's life, I think he feels bad about these things, but he's made out of Teflon these days, I suppose.

It is not an expression of a complete lack of morals, but rather an increased apathy.

>>50024407
He became possessive and controlling, that doesn't mean he stopped loving.

>>50024514
Someone doesn't become as narcissistic as that in their middle age out of nowhere. It's safe to assume that he was always possessive and controlling, only that this expressed itself differently.

>>50024420
So?

>>50024477
I believe he truly feels that it is terrible thing, but feels no guilt.
Evil is the little voice in the back of your mind that tells you whatever you do is okay.

>>50024539
Agreed.
*more possessive and controlling

>>50024557
>feels that it is terrible thing, but feels no guilt.

And what was that terrible feeling he had? Juilt? Quilt?

>>50024539
>>50024562
Actually, he just got a taste of control and went apeshit.
He said at his intervention that he felt like he hadn't made a decision that mattered in over a decade.

>>50024566
More like pity, you jackass.

>>50024566
>>50024601
Notice the word choice.
"Thing that happened."
Not
"Thing we did" or "Thing we were a part of".

>>50024620
Do you always believe everything characters say? He says "what happened to that child" to distance himself, to make the feeling of guilt lighter. He did feel guilty. It was not pity. That is why destroying the corpse makes it easier for him. What helps is destroying the evidence, not only to keep himself safe, but also to keep himself away from the event emotionally. If it was pity that troubled him, handling the body would have made it worse, not better.

>>50024650
Okay, maybe not "no guilt".
You make a point there.

>That is why destroying the corpse makes it easier for him.
Yes, yes. He feels it's toe tappingly tragic, that's it.

Whatever man.
You show me a guy who whistles a jaunty tune shortly after dissolving a murdered child, and I'll show you a guy who's got at least a little bit more evil than average.

>>50012570
I normally play Chaotic Neutral as self-motivated, with his own interests first and foremost.

He has a vested interest in the world being saved, and feels the best way is to do it himself.
The fact that adventuring is profitable is a bonus.

>>50012570
He desperately wants to fuck one of them.

>>50012615
This just raises the same question for each other member