Hi,

I have made an NPC that I want to be chaotic neutral, but the same questions could apply for chaotic neutral characters as well.

How do you play them; either the NPC, or, the character?

While trying to practice my NPCs personality in preparation for playing them, I keep hitting a wall over and over again.  Everything I try comes down on one side or the other, doesn't seem to be truely chaotic, as much as idiotic, and definitely isn't neutral.

The philosophy of my NPC can be summed up as being:

"Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer."

It is for that very reason that they place randomness and disorder above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil.  Their view of the cosmos holds that absolute freedom is necessary. Whether the individual exercising such freedom chooses to do good or evil is of no concern. After all, to them, life itself is law and order, so death is a desirable end. Therefore, life can only be justified as a tool by which order is combated, and in the end it too will pass into entropy.

It is a personal goal of my NPC to achieve the desired state of being - complete entropy.  To detach themselves from the concerns of good and evil, to leave life behind, to empty, become the void and ascend into a higher form, free of such constraints and concerns as is forced upon them by order.

They are willing to assist the players characters, but only within the confines of their philosophy and belief, and they are equally as willing to offer assistance to the the oposate side as well.  They will assist both, take the possitions of both, and in this, they are supposed to act as a foil for the players, and a looking glass through which one can explore the opposing view. 

I am struggling with the formation of the personality of this NPC.  Do you have any advice on how to play such a person?

Thanks

XD

My own views on Chaos and Neutrality are slightly unusual.

I see Chaos as the active desire to both be free and to encourage others to be free.  Everyone must be allowed to make their own choices, and a Chaotic will go out of their way to help others attain the freedom to make their own choices.

I see Neutrality as the lack of desire to do anything that is not to their own benefit.  A truly Neutral person is the ultimate in selfishness, they don't do a thing for anyone else unless there is something in it for them.

A Chaotic Neutral thus goes out of their way only to help others be free to make their own choices.  They will help anyone, good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, but only to the extent of helping them be free.  This is the Alignment of a Rebel without a cause.  All that matters freedom and they don't care who wins so long as they are not bothered.

First, I would ignore the alignment. You seem to have a pretty good start on a personal philosophy, so focus on that. How did this person arrive at this philosophy? How powerful is this person? Are they the level of a regular person just believing in a philosophy like an adherent to a religion, or are they some powerful being who actually can move the universe in the direction they want?

Actually this sounds like the Code of the Wild, from Nobilis, which is:

.. Freedom is the highest Principle

.. Sanity and mundanity are prisons

.. Give in kind with a gift received

A character can’t at the same time act in a purely chaotic way and strive towards bringing about pure chaos (or strive towards anything, really). Striving towards something requires intent, and intent and randomness are mutually exclusive. You’re trying to do too much, I think. This NPC appears to be a nihilistic anarchist.  That’s the core motivation: pretty much ending everything, though without necessarily going so far as committing genocide. This character wants to set the fire and see the world burn, but not through personal, direct acts of atrocity: whatever comes to others will come from the burning, not from them. Forget “neither good nor evil must prevail lest ultimate chaos suffers”, that’s the kind of purist philosophy that would paralyze them into inaction. If setting the fire is best accomplished by one or the other, then it is of no concern that they are not perfectly balanced. Neutral just means the end doesn’t absolutely justify the means, not that there must be a erfect equilibrium.

I don't really think of my characters in term of alignment. I especially don't start with an alignment and then make a character to fit it. I could attempt to throw an alignment onto my characters, but I don't honestly see much use for alignment outside perhaps extraplanar entities that are more defined by alignment like devils etc. 

How do you play them; either the NPC, or, the character?

First, let me say that I think you're going about this backwards. Generally speaking, you generally want to make a personality, then figure out which alignment fits them best, not the other way around.

That said - if you want to start from a CN for any number of valid reasons, I take inspiration from things the game establishes as Chaotic Neutral.  Slaad (CN outsiders). The Chaosmen of Planescape. CN gods such as Liera (goddess of illusions), Mask (god of theives), Ralishaz (god of ill luck and insanity), Olidammara (god of revelry). 

I'm not going to really describe them here, since there's far better material out there to describe them than I could

Speaking from my experiences, though, CN is considered one of the three "unplayable" alignments by most games I know.  CN, CE, NE.  So, if you come across as a bit more evil than you'd expect from something called "neutral."

Alignment shouldn't be the basis for a character. A character should be the basis for their alignment.

However, how I would play a CN character is this: they care about personal freedoms and are willing to accept that some people are going to use those for good and some to ill and just because they are going to do something that the character doesn't like, doesn't give them the grounds to infringe upon said freedom.

I think CN is a misnomer, I think that LN and CN are better described as "True Lawful" and "True Chaotic". Which is they care more about their respective principles and see them inviable and would rather uphold them, even if that meant letting bad things happen: that's the price you pay for walking the narrow path. It's hard, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices to do the right thing.

My advice would be: don't.

Play a character, with whatever belief systems and moral code they happen to possess. Even for a very simple NPC, IMHO the alignment chart is a terrible way to define even just the morality of the character. A quick think about the character, it's motivations and beliefs will make it much easier to play the character than deciding it's alignment.

That's all just my opinion of course.

IMHO, alignment is better tailored to generic, groups of npcs as a very generalized expected code of conduct.  A generic Modron (LN) is orderly to a fault; follows rules and laws to the letter (which ones are a different topic), whereas a Slaad, is unpredictable and wild;  it might lick you, it might try to eat you and it might not do either.

Alignment for individuals is really only useful after personality, bonds, ideals, and flaws don't cover something.  So looking at the basics of what you wrote:

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

 

It is a personal goal of my NPC to achieve the desired state of being - complete entropy.  To detach themselves from the concerns of good and evil, to leave life behind, to empty, become the void and ascend into a higher form, free of such constraints and concerns as is forced upon them by order.

They are willing to assist the players characters, but only within the confines of their philosophy and belief, and they are equally as willing to offer assistance to the the oposate side as well.  They will assist both, take the positions of both, and in this, they are supposed to act as a foil for the players, and a looking glass through which one can explore the opposing view. 

 

So in the classic sense (and again IMHO) ; this isn't Chaotic Neutral.  Its True Natural.   They aren't interested in applying their philosophy on others (which could be a form or Lawful Neutral tyranny), but it isn't disordered or random (like they would help players only half the time), nor is it about enabling personal freedoms (another view of Chaos)  Instead, as described, they have an internal consistency, that they keep to themselves.  Freeing themselves from the shackles of someone else order, isn't chaos;  its a different order. 

They take no sides, help both is as True Neutral as it gets.  But that really only comes into play outside what you already wrote, and to be honest, what you did write is probably sufficient that it doesn't matter.  What you wrote is sufficient really for almost any interaction of the players.  

If you DID want to be the classic CN, you would be flipping coins on every action (See Two-face), you would disregard rules, including your own constantly, and you actions wouldn't make consistent sense.  A hedonist, a person with no impulse control, and unstable individuals are like this.  You might help the players.  You might not.  And you wouldn't know (and they might not know) why.  Same with the player's BBG, or an urchin who begs for bread at the door.  The response is unpredictable;  not necessarily violent or vile, but it would change with every urchin, or its the same for urchins today, but not tomorrow.

Again, there can/will be disagreement on my interpretations.  But the bottom line, if you like what you have, no reason to use a tool that doesn't help you.

For me, a chaotic neutral character does not concern themselves with questions of morality - they may not even have a code that they live by, but rather decide in each moment what makes sense. 

Honestly, I think most people in reality (if the alignment system really made sense - there are far better ways to describe people's moral thinking, like the 5 pillars of morality) would be chaotic neutral. Few people believe in following all lives - rather, they pick and choose which to follow and when. Few people make all their decisions based on an understanding of good and evil or right and wrong, but often think instead of the consequences of their actions. 

I think chaotic neutral lives in the grey rather than the black and white, both of "rules" and of "morality."

I'm playing a character who was raised in the Winter Court of the Feywild and as a result doesn't have much of a moral compass, though at heart he is good (he's been punished in the past by listening to his "inner voice" of a conscience). At first, he saw no reason to help people who could not do anything for him or the party ("Sure, let's free these prisoners, but why should we give them food and water - just let them go and fend for themselves and they can be grateful we saved them") and hasn't even really understood why the party would help him "out of the goodness of their hearts." 

However, he's starting to understand the concepts of morality and, at lest, enlightened self-interest - my plan for him is that he will ultimately become chaotic good as a result of being around other people (who are not fey).

All that being said, alignment is really just a way to describe your character, not a straight jacket for them. Think about how your character would behave in different situations - would she steal just because she wants an item? What if it were to feed a starving person? Would she break a law if there were no chance of being caught or obey it even if no one is watching? Would she go out of her way or put herself at risk to help someone or only if they could pay?

For me, the good vs. evil side has always been "others first" vs. "me first" and the law vs. chaos has always been "obey the rules because they are rules" vs. "rules are made to be broken."

A neutral character recognizes that sometimes it's good to be selfless, sometimes it's ok to be selfish. A lawful neutral character will balance that with an adherence to a structure like a personal code or set of professional ethics.

Quote from RomidarTrueblade >>

For me, a chaotic neutral character does not concern themselves with questions of morality - they may not even have a code that they live by, but rather decide in each moment what makes sense.

Personally, that description sounds very neutral to me. However, I know lots of people disagree with me, so I won't argue the point.

"Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer."

I agree with the others that say you already have all you need. You have a concept, don't mess it up with alignment.

Think of alignment as training wheels or an easy reference point for roleplayers who don't have a good picture of their character's personal beliefs and motivations. They can say, "well I'm X alignment so I guess my character would react like this." Based on your previous posts, I think you always have a really good idea of who your characters are and you know how they would react to something without having to consult your character sheet. That's great!

Same as the ones above that say that it isn't the best idea, but here's an accurate description of CN:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.

Quote from Lyxen >>

Quote from Orange20 >>

Same as the ones above that say that it isn't the best idea, but here's an accurate description of CN:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.

 
It is one view, the 5e "official one", but personally for me it's not the one I prefer, it's not "militant enough" on the side of chaos, and this is mostly because 5e has seriously toned down the alignement, not only that one but all of them, making them really only personal.

Having been raised (with respect to alignment) on AD&D, I much much prefer the views from the PH and DMG respectively:

• Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder. Good and evil are complementary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.
• CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: This view of the cosmos holds that absolute freedom is necessary. Whether the individual exercising such freedom chooses to do good or evil is of no concern. After all, life itself is law and order, so death is a desirable end. Therefore, life can only be justified as a tool by which order is combatted, and in the end it too will pass into entropy.

Already in 2e (which for me had by far the stupidest views on alignment in all the editions) the concept is different and not that interesting to me:

• Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing  about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior

Basically unplayable except as an annoying pain in the backside.

3e was of course better than 2e (anything is), but still not as good to me as AD&D1:

• Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Gimble, a bard who wanders the land living by his wits, is chaotic neutral. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a dogooder’s zeal

This is actually really close to 5e, the main problem that I have with it is that is not that different from true neutral because it's not militant in favor of chaos, and in particular it does not strive to protect the freedom of others and does not voluntarily disrupt organisations, which honestly is not that hard to do and is really interesting in play.

Chaotic Neutral did not exist in 4e (silly, but then... :D ).

 
Random side note but I have had a little look at 4e and I really didn’t like it.  I could see they were trying to deal with some of the accumulated clutter of past editions, but they didn’t seem to do it to well.  

At least from what I saw.  I only got a little look, didn’t even get a chance to play it so I could be wrong. 

I have played TTRPGs for 30 years but only came to D&D with 5e.  The others that I played were more scifi or cyberpunk. I say this, because I fell in love with d&d because of 5e.  The greatly simplified rule set made it easy to make the jump and character creation was not to bad.  However, over time I have become rather enamoured with 3e.  Specifically because of how much I love magic, and how crazy magic could get in 3e. 

I played in one 3e campaign and coming back to my own games that I ran as a DM and the one that I was in as a player, I found 5e to be simplistic.  I wanted to do all the cool things from my 3e play but found many of them to be hugely stripped down, or just not possible.  

In short, I actually don’t think 5e is wizards best work (was it wizards with 3e?).  Although I think it’s an excellent starting point to jump into d&d, especially for totally new players.

I do think that 5e should only be the starting point however - the introduction, because there is so much more wonderful stuff in past editions that didn’t make it this far. 

(sorry for the weird typing today, I’m suffering from a serious headache, so if what I’ve said doesn’t make sense then here’s my advanced apologies.)

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

I played in one 3e campaign and coming back to my own games that I ran as a DM and the one that I was in as a player, I found 5e to be simplistic.  I wanted to do all the cool things from my 3e play but found many of them to be hugely stripped down, or just not possible.  

 

The main difference is that 3E codified many things in exclusive mechanics - in other words, you needed to have a feat or a certain skill rank or something - that 5E leaves open. That doesn't mean you can't do them in 5E though, just that the DM will need to interpret the rules for how to accomplish those. That doesn't apply to everything, but to many things nonetheless. 

That depends on 2 things:

1. Is it C/n, c/N, or C/N?
2. How does that character personally view the concept of neutrality?

What I mean by that:

What aspect of their alignment plays a more significant role in that character’s personal identity? If the concepts of Law-Chaos are more important to them than Good-Evil, then they are C/n and their chaotic nature should generally be represented more overtly. If their concepts of G-E are more significant to them then they would be c/N and their neutrality should be the emphasis. If they value both equally then they would be C/N. IMO, C/N is one of the more challenging alignments to play, and the most difficult to play without passing off the rest of the table.

Some players and characters view neutrality as “neither one nor the other,” others interpret neutrality as “sometimes one, other times the other” (aka 50/50) depending on the situation, still others define neutrality as “both in equal parts.”

So, what does the PC value most in their identity, and how do they define neutrality? Because a “C/n (neither)” character is quite a bit different than a “c/N (both)” character. 

I hope that made sense.