So, before we all start arguing about the alignment chart, I'm going to ask my question:
How do I play True Neutral? My character has recently changed from flipping between CG/CE (mechanically CN) to TN. His goal has been revealed to me to stop the bbeg because he stole a map from the order my character is from that has the sites of a bunch of graves that are important to the story.
Whenever I think of how to play my character, it feels like not True Neutral. More like LN or NG, how do I play TN well?
Outside of a handful of in-game mechanics that depend on alignment, I wouldn’t rely too heavily on it. Play your character in a consistent way that doesn’t cause issues with anyone else, and you should be good. If you need help with deciding how your character should act, then consider their personality, motivations, relationships, and ideals.
Apathy is a powerful tool. A true neutral will not care about the ethics of a senarios only that their goals are accomplished. Probably focus on the path of least resistance solutions or putting decisions completely on others.
Example: for a mcguffin item. Offer to pay what you can and if they refuse attack with out hesitancy And then leave saying it was their choice(if still alive maybe a last rights if not) but then pay anyway . (Possibly adjusting for expenses or damage on both sides)
Just FYI, but 5E doesn't actually have the old True Neutral alignment. They replaced with just plain Neutral and describe it as not concerned with moral questions and not taking sides, ascribing this alignment to druids and most townfolk. So it's basically the "I don't want to think about it, so none of the above" choice.
First, I’d agree with the others who say play your character how you like. Then, if you really need a description to fit that behavior, pick an alignment based on what the character does, don’t choose the alignment first and straight-jacket your character development with it.
As for true neutral, there’s different kinds. As others said, there’s the one who can’t be bothered with all the good and evil business. Then there’s the way where you actively seek balance. You don’t want the good guys or the bad guys to get too strong, so you’ll fight whichever side seems to be ahead at any given moment. The second one can be tough as part of a group, but it can work for some people.
So, before we all start arguing about the alignment chart, I'm going to ask my question:
How do I play True Neutral? My character has recently changed from flipping between CG/CE (mechanically CN) to TN. His goal has been revealed to me to stop the bbeg because he stole a map from the order my character is from that has the sites of a bunch of graves that are important to the story.
Whenever I think of how to play my character, it feels like not True Neutral. More like LN or NG, how do I play TN well?
Alignment really only works at all if it's descriptive of your actions. You do/think X, Y, and Z, so you're Chaotic Disco.
When you start thinking of it as "I'm Chaotic Disco, so I can't do A,, even though it's totally in character otherwise", it doesn't work so well.
The approach I've taken to alignment that I've found to work well is to functionally disconnect the two parts of Alignment so each one is a point of description of the character.
Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic : I take this as a measure of what the character's interaction with the law of the land is. A Lawful character enforces the law, a Neutral character will most likely follow it in most circumstances, and a Chaotic character will actively break the law as a matter of routine.
Good - Neutral - Evil : I take this as a measure of how benevolent a character is, especially in regard to innocents. A Good character will go out of its way to help innocents, a Neutral character will attempt to not cause undue harm to innocents, and an Evil character doesn't care if innocents are harmed.
As such, my interpretation of a True Neutral character is one that doesn't enforce the law, but generally follows it, and while not going out of its way to help innocents, will not consider a course of action that harms them to be a valid option. Though anything goes against people who aren't innocents.
I currently have a True Neutral character who has a bit of a self-hatred problem, that translates into brutal efficiency when dealing with enemies. He takes jobs in town to catch dangerous individuals because he needs the money, not out of any particular desire to help the town. And when an enemy is a cultist captured in the act of summoning a fiend, my character cuts off the cultist's hands and ties a gag around the cultist's head, to guarantee that it can't even attempt that again while in my custody, being taken back to law-enforcement for the reward.
You can interpret the alignments differently, but I came up with this because I believe it has more nuance than what's depicted in the Player's Handbook, which just says, "Neutral is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time." My interpretation of the TN alignment certainly fits that description, but that description in the Player's Handbook also can be interpreted to cover some overtly evil behaviors, which is where I think the OP's confusion is coming into play.
TN doesn't mean that you are apathetic to moral conundrums, it just means that you are very much in the middle of the scale. Jayne from Firefly would be a good example of a character who very much has morals and opinions but is still very much a Neutral aligned character.
The approach I've taken to alignment that I've found to work well is to functionally disconnect the two parts of Alignment so each one is a point of description of the character.
Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic : I take this as a measure of what the character's interaction with the law of the land is. A Lawful character enforces the law, a Neutral character will most likely follow it in most circumstances, and a Chaotic character will actively break the law as a matter of routine.
'Lawful' doesn't mean that you need to enforce the law and chaotic doesn't mean that you have to break the laws. In fact, "lawful" has very little, if anything, to do with laws at all, it's more a matter of order versus chaos. Claiming that a lawful person has to enforce the law explicitly implies that you can't have lawful people in a society that doesn't have formal laws, which is a bit absurd.
A lawful person cares about following rules and laws and other orderly things and sees a self-worth in for example laws and codes and traditions. Chaotic people do not care about such things. Generally speaking, of course.
The approach I've taken to alignment that I've found to work well is to functionally disconnect the two parts of Alignment so each one is a point of description of the character.
Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic : I take this as a measure of what the character's interaction with the law of the land is. A Lawful character enforces the law, a Neutral character will most likely follow it in most circumstances, and a Chaotic character will actively break the law as a matter of routine.
'Lawful' doesn't mean that you need to enforce the law and chaotic doesn't mean that you have to break the laws. In fact, "lawful" has very little, if anything, to do with laws at all, it's more a matter of order versus chaos. Claiming that a lawful person has to enforce the law explicitly implies that you can't have lawful people in a society that doesn't have formal laws, which is a bit absurd.
A lawful person cares about following rules and laws and other orderly things and sees a self-worth in for example laws and codes and traditions. Chaotic people do not care about such things. Generally speaking, of course.
I explained that this is how I re-defined the alignments, because I believe it's clearer and more consistent than what's described in the Player's Handbook. Take Robin Hood as an example. Per the PH descriptions, you could easily argue that he's Lawful Good, because he has a strong set of personal values that he acts on, and won't deviate from. You can also argue that he's Chaotic Good because he's objectively a thief, violating the law of the land, undermining the established order to do what he believes is right. On the topic of Lawful/Order vs Chaos, good definitions for both extremes shouldn't apply to the same character.
Per my use of the words, Robbin Hood is clearly Chaotic Good. He's acting for the betterment of the innocent peasants of the country by actively breaking laws as a matter of routine. It's clear and unambiguous. If someone tells you their alignment using my definitions, it actually tells you two significant aspects of their character, whereas the one in the book is next to useless, because there's too much room for interpretation (See Robin Hood being both LG and CG above).
Also, you're taking the word "law" too narrowly. Every civilization has cultural norms and Faux pas that dictate how people behave. These count when I refer to "laws", they're just not formalized on paper. And alignment refers to the generality of a person's being, not every action they might ever take. If you go to a different culture, it doesn't change the generality of your being, though you may have to behave differently due to the circumstances.
The big problem with the definitions you and the book are using is that there's not enough distinction between Lawful and Neutral. If Lawful people just follow the norms, and Neutral people follow the norms, then they're not really different alignments. The subtleties of differences aren't substantial enough to matter, which is why I believe mine is better.
Ex: Fairies. In most stories, there are immutable laws that they can't break, yet they're fundamentally agents of chaos, doing anything they can to undermine systems of rules. As such they are Chaotic, though some interpretations of "Lawful" as written in the Player's Handbook would identify them as Lawful. A scale that simultaneously classifies them as lawful and chaotic is like a color scale that simultaneously identifies a color as black and white.
LG: A benevolent enforcer of rules who acts for the betterment of innocent people. (Ex: Superman, Commodore Norrington (first PotC film), Captain America, Beowulf, Dustin Henderson)
NG: A person who acts for the betterment of innocent people, and generally acts within the established rules, but isn't enforcing said rules. (Ex: Emmet (LEGO Movie), Will Turner, Jason Bourne, Gandalf, Katniss Everdeen, Shepherd Book.)
CG: A person who acts outside of the rules for the betterment of innocent people. (Ex: Robin Hood, Indiana Jones, The Blues Brothers, Holly Short, Merlin (TV show version), Hawkeye (M.A.S.H.), Malcolm Reynolds)
LN: A person who enforces the rules above all, without regard to if the enforcement actually helps people, yet still avoiding collateral damage. (Ex: Judge Dread, Inspector Javert, Sheldon Cooper, Shere Khan (TaleSpin),
TN: A person who doesn't actively enforce or break the rules, and doesn't go out of their way to be benevolent, but also doesn't actively take actions that harm innocents. (Ex: Timone and Pumbaa, Shrek, Boba Fett, The Dude, Morla (The Never Ending Story), Ents (LotR), The First Doctor (Doctor Who), The Greybeards (Skyrim) )
CN: A person who actively breaks the rules, and isn't really concerned with helping others, but still won't actively harm innocents. (Ex: many fairies, Captain Jack Sparrow, Riddick, Ferris Bueller, Conan the Barbarian, Q (Star Trek Next Generation), Morrigan (Dragon Age Origins), Bugs Bunny)
LE: A person who enforces rules (or manipulates the rules to legally enforce the person's will on others) but has no regard for collateral damage dealt to innocents. (Ex: Lord Business (LEGO Movie), Ramses (Prince of Egypt), Necromongers (Chronicles of Riddick), Aunty Entity (Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome), HYDRA (marvel universe), Killmonger, The Emperor (Star Wars), Andrew Ryan (BioShock), Colonel James Ackerson (Halo) Dolores Umbridge)
NE: A person who technically follows the rules generally, but has no regard for the well-being of others. (Ex: Elliot Marston (Quigley Down Under), The Sea Witch (Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid), Peter Baelish, Smaug, Gollum, Saruman, The Master (Dr Who), Benny (The Mummy) )
CE: A person who actively violates the rules, and has no regard for the well-being of others. (Ex: The Joker, Hal Stewart/Titan (Megamind), Carl (Llamas with Hats) )
TN doesn't mean that you are apathetic to moral conundrums, it just means that you are very much in the middle of the scale. Jayne from Firefly would be a good example of a character who very much has morals and opinions but is still very much a Neutral aligned character.
Jayne is a Chaotic Neutral with a tendency toward evil character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
TN doesn't mean that you are apathetic to moral conundrums, it just means that you are very much in the middle of the scale. Jayne from Firefly would be a good example of a character who very much has morals and opinions but is still very much a Neutral aligned character.
Jayne is a Chaotic Neutral with a tendency toward evil character.
Nah. He cares too much about (some) people and he's too good at keeping his word to be CN. Evil? Sure, sometimes but not any more than Mal.
What people does he care about? It's made explicitly clear that he would sell the Serenity out if he got a good enough offer and Mal actually has to resort to threatening him in order to keep him in line on several occasions. Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean that someone doesn't care about anyone but themselves, it just means that they prioritize themselves much more than other people and that's exactly Jayne Cobb.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
What people does he care about? It's made explicitly clear that he would sell the Serenity out if he got a good enough offer and Mal actually has to resort to threatening him in order to keep him in line on several occasions. Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean that someone doesn't care about anyone but themselves, it just means that they prioritize themselves much more than other people and that's exactly Jayne Cobb.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
There are numerous occasions where he has shown to set the crew over his own personal gains (it's called a 'character arc'). He's also shown to care about other people's feeling and their wellbeing. Hell, in the very first episode he's shown to care enough about Kaylee to sit and watch over her after she was shot.
And no, chaotic does not mean "prioritize themselves much more than other people", that would be towards the evil end of the good-evil scale. The fact that he is very much up front with Mal that he might sell them out, that he negotiates a better deal with Mal than his old crew to join them show that he's more towards the lawful end of the spectrum than he is towards the chaotic side.
What people does he care about? It's made explicitly clear that he would sell the Serenity out if he got a good enough offer and Mal actually has to resort to threatening him in order to keep him in line on several occasions. Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean that someone doesn't care about anyone but themselves, it just means that they prioritize themselves much more than other people and that's exactly Jayne Cobb.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
There are numerous occasions where he has shown to set the crew over his own personal gains (it's called a 'character arc'). He's also shown to care about other people's feeling and their wellbeing. Hell, in the very first episode he's shown to care enough about Kaylee to sit and watch over her after she was shot.
Yes, because being chaotic neutral doesn't mean having no empathy. But he's also someone who's willing to lie, cheat, and steal from the crew, often in hilariously petty ways like when he ate the soup that Zoey made for Wash or when he stole the "don't have to do the chores" tickets that everyone was gambling with while the others were distracted. And, of course, when he tried to sell out River and Simon to the Alliance. The only reason he didn't wasn't because of some sort of concern for their well-being or crisis of consciousness, it was because the Blue Hands showed up and started murdering everyone in the building and he was smart enough to realized that he wasn't going to get paid.
And no, chaotic does not mean "prioritize themselves much more than other people", that would be towards the evil end of the good-evil scale. The fact that he is very much up front with Mal that he might sell them out, that he negotiates a better deal with Mal than his old crew to join them show that he's more towards the lawful end of the spectrum than he is towards the chaotic side.
First of all, I said "Chaotic Neutral with a tendency toward evil." That last clause is important. And no, the fact that he's willing to sell them out and can be easily convinced to switch sides for money means that he's very much not lawful. A lawful character won't accept a bribe to turn on their team.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
What people does he care about? It's made explicitly clear that he would sell the Serenity out if he got a good enough offer and Mal actually has to resort to threatening him in order to keep him in line on several occasions. Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean that someone doesn't care about anyone but themselves, it just means that they prioritize themselves much more than other people and that's exactly Jayne Cobb.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
There are numerous occasions where he has shown to set the crew over his own personal gains (it's called a 'character arc'). He's also shown to care about other people's feeling and their wellbeing. Hell, in the very first episode he's shown to care enough about Kaylee to sit and watch over her after she was shot.
Yes, because being chaotic neutral doesn't mean having no empathy. But he's also someone who's willing to lie, cheat, and steal from the crew, often in hilariously petty ways like when he ate the soup that Zoey made for Wash or when he stole the "don't have to do the chores" tickets that everyone was gambling with while the others were distracted. And, of course, when he tried to sell out River and Simon to the Alliance. The only reason he didn't wasn't because of some sort of concern for their well-being or crisis of consciousness, it was because the Blue Hands showed up and started murdering everyone in the building and he was smart enough to realized that he wasn't going to get paid.
And no, chaotic does not mean "prioritize themselves much more than other people", that would be towards the evil end of the good-evil scale. The fact that he is very much up front with Mal that he might sell them out, that he negotiates a better deal with Mal than his old crew to join them show that he's more towards the lawful end of the spectrum than he is towards the chaotic side.
First of all, I said "Chaotic Neutral with a tendency toward evil." That last clause is important. And no, the fact that he's willing to sell them out and can be easily convinced to switch sides for money means that he's very much not lawful. A lawful character won't accept a bribe to turn on their team.
People seem to be well-agreed that Jayne Cobb is Chaotic, which I agree on as well.
However, on the scale of Good to Evil, he's always doing what's best for himself and he doesn't care a bit about harming anyone to get what he wants. He's smart enough to understand when he's got a good thing (his situation on Serenity), and he'll do what he has to in order to maintain that good thing, which explains his interactions with the crew and passengers of Serenity, as well as how he behaves when he knows word will get back to Malcolm, vs what he does when he thinks it won't (selling River to the Purple Bellies). Clearly Malcolm being in charge is the driving force behind Jayne behaving in a Neutral-alignment way, but it's clear that without that authority over him, Jayne's natural character is Evil.
First of all, I said "Chaotic Neutral with a tendency toward evil." That last clause is important. And no, the fact that he's willing to sell them out and can be easily convinced to switch sides for money means that he's very much not lawful. A lawful character won't accept a bribe to turn on their team.
A lawful good character might not. An neutral character might.
However, on the scale of Good to Evil, he's always doing what's best for himself and he doesn't care a bit about harming anyone to get what he wants. He's smart enough to understand when he's got a good thing (his situation on Serenity), and he'll do what he has to in order to maintain that good thing, which explains his interactions with the crew and passengers of Serenity, as well as how he behaves when he knows word will get back to Malcolm, vs what he does when he thinks it won't (selling River to the Purple Bellies). Clearly Malcolm being in charge is the driving force behind Jayne behaving in a Neutral-alignment way, but it's clear that without that authority over him, Jayne's natural character is Evil.
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. He shows multiple times that he cares about the crew and he often does things that doesn't beenfit him to help others. A chaotic evil character owuldn't behave in any way as rational or altruistic as Jayne sometimes does.
Then again, opinions, a**holes and all that. Doesn't really matter.
One piece of advice I have for neutral is to not try to overplay your neutrality. I see some new players fall into the trap of feeling that Neutral means they have to be 'balanced' in some way or try to take some extremely high concept version of neutrality (grey jedi or dragonlance nonsense about needing equal parts good and evil to keep them in line or whatever). You can play that way (although check with the rest of the group since it can be of annoying in certain respects) but you don't have to be.
Neutral can just be... kind of in the middle. Not committed enough to be Good, but not Evil either. Not strict enough to be Lawful, but not exactly Chaotic either. You might donate to charity or volunteer somewhere, but not necessarily be willing to stretch yourself too thin or put yourself at risk for a stranger, at least not in normal situations. You might bend or break the rules, but probably in small or easy to rationalize ways, while being a bit averse to serious acts of deviance. You probably have some convictions and strong opinions, but they might not all fall in the same way along the alignment scale or you might be a little more morally flexible in certain regards.
... You can also ignore all of that because the most important thing is to roleplay a character in a way that feels right to you as the player and conveys the personality and ideals you want to explore with them. I just wanted to illustrate some ways in which I think neutral can be played without turning it into a big thing necessarily.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, before we all start arguing about the alignment chart, I'm going to ask my question:
How do I play True Neutral? My character has recently changed from flipping between CG/CE (mechanically CN) to TN. His goal has been revealed to me to stop the bbeg because he stole a map from the order my character is from that has the sites of a bunch of graves that are important to the story.
Whenever I think of how to play my character, it feels like not True Neutral. More like LN or NG, how do I play TN well?
Outside of a handful of in-game mechanics that depend on alignment, I wouldn’t rely too heavily on it. Play your character in a consistent way that doesn’t cause issues with anyone else, and you should be good. If you need help with deciding how your character should act, then consider their personality, motivations, relationships, and ideals.
Apathy is a powerful tool. A true neutral will not care about the ethics of a senarios only that their goals are accomplished. Probably focus on the path of least resistance solutions or putting decisions completely on others.
Example: for a mcguffin item. Offer to pay what you can and if they refuse attack with out hesitancy And then leave saying it was their choice(if still alive maybe a last rights if not) but then pay anyway . (Possibly adjusting for expenses or damage on both sides)
Just FYI, but 5E doesn't actually have the old True Neutral alignment. They replaced with just plain Neutral and describe it as not concerned with moral questions and not taking sides, ascribing this alignment to druids and most townfolk. So it's basically the "I don't want to think about it, so none of the above" choice.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/personality-and-background#Alignment
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
First, I’d agree with the others who say play your character how you like. Then, if you really need a description to fit that behavior, pick an alignment based on what the character does, don’t choose the alignment first and straight-jacket your character development with it.
As for true neutral, there’s different kinds. As others said, there’s the one who can’t be bothered with all the good and evil business. Then there’s the way where you actively seek balance. You don’t want the good guys or the bad guys to get too strong, so you’ll fight whichever side seems to be ahead at any given moment. The second one can be tough as part of a group, but it can work for some people.
Alignment really only works at all if it's descriptive of your actions. You do/think X, Y, and Z, so you're Chaotic Disco.
When you start thinking of it as "I'm Chaotic Disco, so I can't do A,, even though it's totally in character otherwise", it doesn't work so well.
The approach I've taken to alignment that I've found to work well is to functionally disconnect the two parts of Alignment so each one is a point of description of the character.
Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic : I take this as a measure of what the character's interaction with the law of the land is. A Lawful character enforces the law, a Neutral character will most likely follow it in most circumstances, and a Chaotic character will actively break the law as a matter of routine.
Good - Neutral - Evil : I take this as a measure of how benevolent a character is, especially in regard to innocents. A Good character will go out of its way to help innocents, a Neutral character will attempt to not cause undue harm to innocents, and an Evil character doesn't care if innocents are harmed.
As such, my interpretation of a True Neutral character is one that doesn't enforce the law, but generally follows it, and while not going out of its way to help innocents, will not consider a course of action that harms them to be a valid option. Though anything goes against people who aren't innocents.
I currently have a True Neutral character who has a bit of a self-hatred problem, that translates into brutal efficiency when dealing with enemies. He takes jobs in town to catch dangerous individuals because he needs the money, not out of any particular desire to help the town. And when an enemy is a cultist captured in the act of summoning a fiend, my character cuts off the cultist's hands and ties a gag around the cultist's head, to guarantee that it can't even attempt that again while in my custody, being taken back to law-enforcement for the reward.
You can interpret the alignments differently, but I came up with this because I believe it has more nuance than what's depicted in the Player's Handbook, which just says, "Neutral is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time." My interpretation of the TN alignment certainly fits that description, but that description in the Player's Handbook also can be interpreted to cover some overtly evil behaviors, which is where I think the OP's confusion is coming into play.
TN doesn't mean that you are apathetic to moral conundrums, it just means that you are very much in the middle of the scale. Jayne from Firefly would be a good example of a character who very much has morals and opinions but is still very much a Neutral aligned character.
'Lawful' doesn't mean that you need to enforce the law and chaotic doesn't mean that you have to break the laws. In fact, "lawful" has very little, if anything, to do with laws at all, it's more a matter of order versus chaos. Claiming that a lawful person has to enforce the law explicitly implies that you can't have lawful people in a society that doesn't have formal laws, which is a bit absurd.
A lawful person cares about following rules and laws and other orderly things and sees a self-worth in for example laws and codes and traditions. Chaotic people do not care about such things. Generally speaking, of course.
I explained that this is how I re-defined the alignments, because I believe it's clearer and more consistent than what's described in the Player's Handbook. Take Robin Hood as an example. Per the PH descriptions, you could easily argue that he's Lawful Good, because he has a strong set of personal values that he acts on, and won't deviate from. You can also argue that he's Chaotic Good because he's objectively a thief, violating the law of the land, undermining the established order to do what he believes is right. On the topic of Lawful/Order vs Chaos, good definitions for both extremes shouldn't apply to the same character.
Per my use of the words, Robbin Hood is clearly Chaotic Good. He's acting for the betterment of the innocent peasants of the country by actively breaking laws as a matter of routine. It's clear and unambiguous. If someone tells you their alignment using my definitions, it actually tells you two significant aspects of their character, whereas the one in the book is next to useless, because there's too much room for interpretation (See Robin Hood being both LG and CG above).
Also, you're taking the word "law" too narrowly. Every civilization has cultural norms and Faux pas that dictate how people behave. These count when I refer to "laws", they're just not formalized on paper. And alignment refers to the generality of a person's being, not every action they might ever take. If you go to a different culture, it doesn't change the generality of your being, though you may have to behave differently due to the circumstances.
The big problem with the definitions you and the book are using is that there's not enough distinction between Lawful and Neutral. If Lawful people just follow the norms, and Neutral people follow the norms, then they're not really different alignments. The subtleties of differences aren't substantial enough to matter, which is why I believe mine is better.
Ex: Fairies. In most stories, there are immutable laws that they can't break, yet they're fundamentally agents of chaos, doing anything they can to undermine systems of rules. As such they are Chaotic, though some interpretations of "Lawful" as written in the Player's Handbook would identify them as Lawful. A scale that simultaneously classifies them as lawful and chaotic is like a color scale that simultaneously identifies a color as black and white.
LG: A benevolent enforcer of rules who acts for the betterment of innocent people. (Ex: Superman, Commodore Norrington (first PotC film), Captain America, Beowulf, Dustin Henderson)
NG: A person who acts for the betterment of innocent people, and generally acts within the established rules, but isn't enforcing said rules. (Ex: Emmet (LEGO Movie), Will Turner, Jason Bourne, Gandalf, Katniss Everdeen, Shepherd Book.)
CG: A person who acts outside of the rules for the betterment of innocent people. (Ex: Robin Hood, Indiana Jones, The Blues Brothers, Holly Short, Merlin (TV show version), Hawkeye (M.A.S.H.), Malcolm Reynolds)
LN: A person who enforces the rules above all, without regard to if the enforcement actually helps people, yet still avoiding collateral damage. (Ex: Judge Dread, Inspector Javert, Sheldon Cooper, Shere Khan (TaleSpin),
TN: A person who doesn't actively enforce or break the rules, and doesn't go out of their way to be benevolent, but also doesn't actively take actions that harm innocents. (Ex: Timone and Pumbaa, Shrek, Boba Fett, The Dude, Morla (The Never Ending Story), Ents (LotR), The First Doctor (Doctor Who), The Greybeards (Skyrim) )
CN: A person who actively breaks the rules, and isn't really concerned with helping others, but still won't actively harm innocents. (Ex: many fairies, Captain Jack Sparrow, Riddick, Ferris Bueller, Conan the Barbarian, Q (Star Trek Next Generation), Morrigan (Dragon Age Origins), Bugs Bunny)
LE: A person who enforces rules (or manipulates the rules to legally enforce the person's will on others) but has no regard for collateral damage dealt to innocents. (Ex: Lord Business (LEGO Movie), Ramses (Prince of Egypt), Necromongers (Chronicles of Riddick), Aunty Entity (Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome), HYDRA (marvel universe), Killmonger, The Emperor (Star Wars), Andrew Ryan (BioShock), Colonel James Ackerson (Halo) Dolores Umbridge)
NE: A person who technically follows the rules generally, but has no regard for the well-being of others. (Ex: Elliot Marston (Quigley Down Under), The Sea Witch (Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid), Peter Baelish, Smaug, Gollum, Saruman, The Master (Dr Who), Benny (The Mummy) )
CE: A person who actively violates the rules, and has no regard for the well-being of others. (Ex: The Joker, Hal Stewart/Titan (Megamind), Carl (Llamas with Hats) )
Jayne is a Chaotic Neutral with a tendency toward evil character.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Nah. He cares too much about (some) people and he's too good at keeping his word to be CN. Evil? Sure, sometimes but not any more than Mal.
What people does he care about? It's made explicitly clear that he would sell the Serenity out if he got a good enough offer and Mal actually has to resort to threatening him in order to keep him in line on several occasions. Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean that someone doesn't care about anyone but themselves, it just means that they prioritize themselves much more than other people and that's exactly Jayne Cobb.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Look at that. Eleven posts before an alignment thread started arguing about the alignment of a fictional character. I think we may have a new record.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
There are numerous occasions where he has shown to set the crew over his own personal gains (it's called a 'character arc'). He's also shown to care about other people's feeling and their wellbeing. Hell, in the very first episode he's shown to care enough about Kaylee to sit and watch over her after she was shot.
And no, chaotic does not mean "prioritize themselves much more than other people", that would be towards the evil end of the good-evil scale. The fact that he is very much up front with Mal that he might sell them out, that he negotiates a better deal with Mal than his old crew to join them show that he's more towards the lawful end of the spectrum than he is towards the chaotic side.
Yes, because being chaotic neutral doesn't mean having no empathy. But he's also someone who's willing to lie, cheat, and steal from the crew, often in hilariously petty ways like when he ate the soup that Zoey made for Wash or when he stole the "don't have to do the chores" tickets that everyone was gambling with while the others were distracted. And, of course, when he tried to sell out River and Simon to the Alliance. The only reason he didn't wasn't because of some sort of concern for their well-being or crisis of consciousness, it was because the Blue Hands showed up and started murdering everyone in the building and he was smart enough to realized that he wasn't going to get paid.
First of all, I said "Chaotic Neutral with a tendency toward evil." That last clause is important. And no, the fact that he's willing to sell them out and can be easily convinced to switch sides for money means that he's very much not lawful. A lawful character won't accept a bribe to turn on their team.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
People seem to be well-agreed that Jayne Cobb is Chaotic, which I agree on as well.
However, on the scale of Good to Evil, he's always doing what's best for himself and he doesn't care a bit about harming anyone to get what he wants. He's smart enough to understand when he's got a good thing (his situation on Serenity), and he'll do what he has to in order to maintain that good thing, which explains his interactions with the crew and passengers of Serenity, as well as how he behaves when he knows word will get back to Malcolm, vs what he does when he thinks it won't (selling River to the Purple Bellies). Clearly Malcolm being in charge is the driving force behind Jayne behaving in a Neutral-alignment way, but it's clear that without that authority over him, Jayne's natural character is Evil.
Jayne Cobb is Chaotic Evil.
That's a much better reasoned argument.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A lawful good character might not. An neutral character might.
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. He shows multiple times that he cares about the crew and he often does things that doesn't beenfit him to help others. A chaotic evil character owuldn't behave in any way as rational or altruistic as Jayne sometimes does.
Then again, opinions, a**holes and all that. Doesn't really matter.
One piece of advice I have for neutral is to not try to overplay your neutrality. I see some new players fall into the trap of feeling that Neutral means they have to be 'balanced' in some way or try to take some extremely high concept version of neutrality (grey jedi or dragonlance nonsense about needing equal parts good and evil to keep them in line or whatever). You can play that way (although check with the rest of the group since it can be of annoying in certain respects) but you don't have to be.
Neutral can just be... kind of in the middle. Not committed enough to be Good, but not Evil either. Not strict enough to be Lawful, but not exactly Chaotic either. You might donate to charity or volunteer somewhere, but not necessarily be willing to stretch yourself too thin or put yourself at risk for a stranger, at least not in normal situations. You might bend or break the rules, but probably in small or easy to rationalize ways, while being a bit averse to serious acts of deviance. You probably have some convictions and strong opinions, but they might not all fall in the same way along the alignment scale or you might be a little more morally flexible in certain regards.
... You can also ignore all of that because the most important thing is to roleplay a character in a way that feels right to you as the player and conveys the personality and ideals you want to explore with them. I just wanted to illustrate some ways in which I think neutral can be played without turning it into a big thing necessarily.