You're viewing a single thread.
That sure seems like chaotic neutral or maybe neutral evil. Chaotic evil always came across to me as being evil for the lulz
The way I've always looked at the alignments is that the evil - good axis is self-interest vs selflessness, and chaotic - lawful is lawless vs law-abiding.
Consequently:
-
Chaotic evil is pure lawless self-interest
-
Chaotic neutral is lawless with a balance of selfish and selfless behavior depending on situation
-
Neutral evil is a balance between lawless and law-abiding behavior depending on situation but always selfishly.
At least that's the way I've used it.
I've always viewed the Lawful-Chaotic spectra as "following the rules vs. following your heart".
A lawful good character follows the rules because they believe rules serve a greater good
A chaotic good character follows their heart because they believe rules aren't always just. They'll obey the rules only when they agree with them.
Lawful evil follows the rules because it's the least troublesome way of getting/doing what they want, in some cases even the most satisfying - because it's harder to fight back when the law is on your side.
Chaotic evil efficiently follows their impulse. They take and do whatever they want to do, whether they're allowed to or not, because they don't believe in the rules. If the rules allow them to do what they want, that's just a convenient coincidence.
Neutrals are a huge spectra in between. They could a character with their own moral code, I.e. an evil character who refuses to kill kids, or a good character who will always bends the rules to screw over ruch people.
The problem is both chaotic and neutral characters follow their hearts.
Which is why I view chaotic characters as being willing to do blatantly self-destructive or uncomfortable things just for the sake of thumbing their nose at authority. The chaotic evil character doesn't kill people because she wants to, she does it because you don't want her to.
Your interpretation is your own, but I as I eluded to before, I view neutrals as a half and half of lawful and chaotic.
In my mind, neutrals don't follow the law to the tee, but they aren't entirely swayed by the impulse of their heart either.
They could be the type with informal rules they won't break, like an evil character that refuses to kill children, but doesn't care what happens otherwise.
They could be a rule bender, like a good character who generally see rules as a good thing, but turn a blind eye to the rules they deem against the people, or bend them to breaking point to help others.
Could even be a true neutral character who goes with the flow. They do what is needed to complete the mission - they will use the rules to their advantage, but aren't above breaking them when that fails.
Sure you could say these sway towards lawful and chaotic, but that's the point. Neutral is a mix of the two, not necessarily its own thing. That's why I don't see neutrals as a problem here.
It's all up to personal interpretation, of course!
I think neutrals only listen to their heart, whereas chaotic characters actually specifically hate the law. Demons are chaotic, not because they're passionate, but because they oppose order and morals and rules.
A neutral character only considers the law when thinking about consequences. A chaotic character always considers the law because fuck the police I won't do what you tell me!
I agree, everybody is entitled to their own opinions on this - plus at the end of the day, as long as the table you're on is on the same page, you're good no matter what anyone else thinks.
So how would your interpretation cover chaotic good?
Chaotic evil in your mind is basically a murderhobo that kills and destroy because fuck society and fuck the rules, but a good person wouldn't want to kill and destroy just to spite the rules no?I think the epitome of chaotic good would basically be a radical that wants to dethrone all gods and all kings. While they certainly hate rules and laws they wouldn't want to necessarily kill and destroy just to spite them, because they're still good. Good and evil alignment still matters in that case. They'd still definitely enjoy whenever they get the chance to break the law for a good cause.
I like to try to give chaotic its own set of things they can all agree on that would make lawful uncomfortable, but that they’ll fight each other over implementation, much like how a lawful good character will agree with a lawful evil character that strong leadership is important and that certain people are more deserving than others and that they need to establish firm rules but then fight over who it should be and what those rules should be.
I think of a chaotic character as someone who may not know what they’ll do until they’re put in a position. They hate hierarchy and being subjected to authority and don’t want to hold positions of authority. They commit all the crimes they’d like to that they feel comfortable committing (for chaotic good that may be freeing slaves or stealing food for the hungry, for chaotic evil it’s more likely to lean evil). They value freedom and pleasure. While lawful and neutral characters are kept evil or neutral by codes and rules, chaotic characters are kept there by the nature of their desires.
Chaotic evil: insane/short sighted evil, this is folks like serial/spree killers, traveling con artists, the joker. If they have an ideal it is chaos or pleasure and any thinking things through is purely to get it. This is the alignment most likely to acknowledge the full breadth of their evil without making excuses. They don’t need a reason to hurt people beyond what they want and they don’t need to excuse it to themselves after.
Chaotic neutral: follow their whims which neither tend towards particularly good nor evil. They aren’t charging into a burning building or laying down their lives for freedom, but they’re also not doing the sort of shit that the average person would feel bad about like rape or murder. They think of chaotic good as foolish and chaotic evil as fucked up. These are the punks who never contribute to mutual aid or seek out Nazis to bash. These are the people who deal weed and psychedelics, but don’t touch meth or opiates. The people who make moonshine. The sort of person who has to learn why a law is harmful before they don’t go out of their way to break it. They may think of themselves as a free spirit or an asshole or something similar.
Neutral evil: self interest above all else. Maybe they have ideals, but they’ll break them for non-extreme reasons but they excuse it. They’re more likely than anyone else to see vulnerability as an invitation. When the navy is strong, they’re in the colonial force of it, when it’s weak they’re a pirate, and when it switches so do they. This is gang member, the embezzler, the oil executive. They may hate tyranny but think there need to be some rules, but they think there have to be exceptions and don’t they deserve what they’re doing. They may think everyone is like them. They’re drawn to evil acts by evil desires and/or evil biases and preconceptions. Bigotry is another trait that may bring an otherwise true neutral person to neutral evil. Lawful evil will likely try to use these people to fill out their ranks.
The difficult question is if a chaotic evil character would follow a law that is in their self interest.
I don't think they would. I think they'd break the law anyway, even if it went against their own interests, because their nature is pure lawlessness.
Chaos, to me, implies an inherent lawlessness that is itself the character's goal. They break the law for its own sake, because they want laws to be broken (i.e. for the lulz)
I gota disagree. Breaking every law would basically make them anti-lawful. You could always predict their behaviour in this case which IMO is absolutely not chaotic.
There are lots of different ways to break laws!
There just has to be a way to differentiate neutral from chaos, because your interpretation is that they both break or follow laws depending on the circumstances. No difference.
It's all in the interpretation, alignment is a squishy subjective thing, but I rule the difference as the chaotic character absolutely does not care. Even if told "The punishment for doing what you're doing is X", and X is really bad for them and so they should try and avoid it out of self-interest, they just wouldn't care.
A neutral character can be swayed by the legal consequences of their actions, even if the law isn't especially important to them.
I think lawlessness isn’t the best way to think of it. But rather a resentment that someone is making them do a thing. They don’t murder people because it’s illegal they murder people because they want to and then get pissed off that there’s a law against it
Oh yes, definitely. They abhor all rules and restrictions, whether they come from society or the king or even within themselves.
Chaos is that impulse you got as a child when you were told not to do something stupid, knew it was stupid to do, and then did it anyway because fuck you I won't do what you told me!
That's an interesting point of view. I've never really seen it that way, but I can appreciate that. I see it more as a complete disregard for the law, rather than actively trying to break laws. It'd be pretty silly if a chaotic evil character, on hearing that feeding the homeless is illegal, would go around sharing his rations with homeless people "for the lulz".
Neutral, to me, is a complete disregard for the law. Chaos is actually being anti-law
A chaotic evil character would feed the homeless, but also it would be poisoned or something. For the lulz
This makes me think that Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil are way worse people than Chaotic Evil. The Lawful and Neutral ones are systematically and intentionally evil. While the Chaotic ones are just living their best life—which happens to be evil.
-
You're mistakening it with chaotic stupid.
Why not true neutral?
True neutral wouldn't harm others for their own benefit. Saying someone would do anything with no regard for morality implies they are willing to harm others.
Good goes out of their way to help others.
Neutral doesn't go out of their way to help, but also doesn't harm others.
Evil is willing to harm others.
Thanks! I thought that neutral was not being interested about consequences for others, but it looks like I misunderstood.
I guess the only real argument is that “acting in their own self interest” is quite selfish and moderately evil. So I guess it comes down to the context of the selfishness that’s being exhibited. I feel like there is much more room for interpretation there.