I've played a lot of RPGs in the past, but just about to join my first D&D group.
I've taken 2 different alignment tests (as my character) and both came back CN. However, the description of CN doesn't seem to fit my character, so I'm not sure what to do. Everthing seems to describe CN as wild and hedonistic.
My character is a Human Rogue. He and his parents had been slaves to a wealthy lord and escaped when he was 12. At 15, the lord found them and his parents were killed, but managed to help him escape.
He now swindles, scams, and steals from the wealthy and powerful. He gives a little of the loot to people they have wronged.
He thinks rules and laws are just there to keep little people in their place.
He is very loyal to his friends, unless they act in a way he finds deplorable. He doesn't steal from the poor unless they abuse any power they might have. He doesn't mind stealing from the wealthy, even if they act good, because he feels hording wealth is a terrible thing. He is really driven by a desire to punish the wealthy and powerful.
He tends to be more practical than moral. If he were robbing the home of a wealthing and abusive lord, he would think it practical to kill the lord, so he can't come looking for the person who robbed him.
He preferes to act with a detailed plan, to lie and use sweet words to get what he wants.
He doesn't like his group taking work from wealthy or powerful people unless they find a way to swindle or steal from them too.
So, he is personally disciplined, but doesn't trust the law. He places no value on the lives of people he thinks are corrupt, but wants to aid the poor and downtrodden.
Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is classic chaotic good.
Killing the rich and giving some to the poor makes you more chaotic netural.
But of course, you can be somewhere in between. There's no penalty or bonus for anything.
Personally i like the 5x5 style, giving you a little more middle ground.
Your character seems perfectly CN to me. Some people obsess over alignment stereotypes (and "wild and hedonistic" is the least of the CN alignment stereotypes), but each alignment covers an array of behaviors. Also, 5e doesn't reward alignment, and outside of some game dependent warnings about being careful when playing evil characters (and a few alignment restrictions on some magical items), it doesn't punish any alignment either. Dungeon Masters might be a different story. A DM might not feel you deserve an inspiration point if your interpretation doesn't line up with his/her's, but that is a pretty small issue. If a DM bans an alignment (or NPC's your charcter if you stray into forbidden alignments), they ought to tell everyone ahead of time. You might have to adjust the character a bit (give him/her a soft spot for orphans will often let you play a pretty CN [officially] CG character....).
Chaotic Neutral is a label that gets slapped onto characters too easily. I think your character is chaotic good, or neutral good.
-You don't care for the law, so you are not lawful.
-Nor do you seem to follow some kind of moral code, or code of honor, so again you are not lawful.
-You do care about your friends and the poor, so that makes you good.
-You do what ever seems right or practical to you, which may be right or wrong to other people. That is chaotic.
-You don't seem to believe in absolute morality, so this is chaotic.
-You don't seem to pick any side, but you don't betray your friends, nor harm the poor, unless they deserve it. This seems more neutral.
I'd say, you are chaotic good.
Don't forget that (in 5e in particular) alignment isn't a straightjacket, it's a tool to help you. It's a very-rough guide to your characters morals and motivation. Such axiomatic absolutes don't exist in the real world, because people have more depth to them than a some 2-dimensional scale of good-evil, law-chaos. Choose one that you think best fits your character, then just player your characters personality, goals, motivation etc. If you're ever stuck on how to play your character or wonder what they would do in a given situation, then you can refer back to your alignment and see if that gives you any ideas. Feel free to act against your alignment if it's what you think your character would do. Feel free to smash it completely in a crisis and see the new direction your PC takes.
Thanks for the input. It's been very helpful.
I'm not concerned about reconciling a CG alignment with killing people. Killing seems to be far less of a questionable act in many RPGs and D&D doesn't really seem that different.
I really have my character and his background quite fleshed out and think I'll have no trouble acting within his personality.
I tend to be a little OCD and that's why I obsessed about getting the correct alignment.
Probably should have mentioned, my familiarity with D&D is mostly limited to reading Order of the Stick.
I agree with the others. From what you've written it sounds like you're somewhere between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral. You have a slightly complex morality that doesn't fit exactly into the rough 9 suggestions, but that's just fine. You have a good handle on how your character will act so I think your DM will approve whatever you decide to write on your character.
Sounds pretty CN as I would interpret it, but alignment is one of those things that causes more debate than anything else in D&D. Sometimes in my D&D group a fictional character will come up and we all have different valid interpretations of his alignment. As an example, I have a character I interpreted as lawful good. It is utterly zealous in finding and destroying evil and wrongdoers. So zealous in fact he actually enjoys dishing out punishment. The DM and I had a disagreement when I mentioned possibly going into being a Paladin arguing that he believed the character to be lawful neutral (we were using the 3.5 rules of Paladins having to be LG). His argument was that the character cared more about the act more than the motive for the act. Another player at the table chimed in that he believed the character was LE because he believed the character to be sadistic, and pointed out that my character actually enjoyed harming evil doers. Ultimately, however, it's whatever alignment your DM interprets it to be.
You favor a personal code over the laws of society.
You don't really give a damn about higher concepts like Good or Evil.
That's Chaotic Neutral.
The fact that you occasionally perform a so-called good or evil act like giving money to the poor or killing somebody because it's the expedient thing to do does not in any affect the larger fact that you don't much give a damn about Good and Evil.
This is one of the better alignment graphics I've seen, and basically sums it up.
I'm not seeing CN.
I'm seeing LE or NE depending on how fervent you stick to your code.
Nah, it's exactly chaotic neutral.
Chaotic, because he does not listen to any laws. Neutral because he doesn't care for concepts of good and evil, he just does what seems most practical.
@Yunru
Right. The only purpose of alignment I see is that you can ask players to only make good and neutral alignment characters and then rule that you don't allow them to act like assholes and ruining the game for everyone.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Name me one thing alignment does other than ballpark.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
They are different.
I can say "no evil alignments" and let it go at that.
I can say "Here is a list of traits I do not want in the game." That allows players to be whatever alignments they want, however they know not to use traits X,Y, or Z for their characters.
If you look at what the OP says about his character I scratch my head at people thinking it's CN.
He now swindles, scams, and steals from the wealthy and powerful. robbing the home of a wealthing and abusive lord, he would think it practical to kill the lord, so he can't come looking for the person who robbed him. He doesn't mind stealing from the wealthy, even if they act good, because he feels hording wealth is a terrible thing.
He preferes to act with a detailed plan, to lie and use sweet words to get what he wants. He is very loyal to his friends, unless they act in a way he finds deplorable. He doesn't like his group taking work from wealthy or powerful people unless they find a way to swindle or steal from them too.
wants to aid the poor and downtrodden. = He gives a little of the loot to people they have wronged?
These kinds of disagreements are pretty much exactly why people have issues with the alignment system.
Having said that, I would like to ask what exactly you would consider appropriate behaviour for a Chaotic Neutral character? After all, a CN character is not in any way required to be altruistic (that's Chaotic Good). If a character who is willing to do bad things to get what they want is CE and a character who is willing to do bad things to help others is CG, where does CN fit?
5e says
CG : act as their conscience directs
CE: act with arbitary violence
CN: follow their whims.
Personally I have always disliked CN. Too many remember what TSR D&D said about CN, I usually ban it from my game.
LE: methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradtion, loyalty, or order.
LE better represents what the OP said. He is really driven by a desire to punish the wealthy and powerful.
The ironic part is the character will be/is wealthy and powerful.
It sounds like the chart you took may have had a faulty algorythm where you answered the Chatoc/Lawful questions so much more forcefully than the Good/Evil questions that it put you in CN. However CN is not more chaotic than CG, its just that CG has another dimension that it is concerned with whereas CN does not.
Your description does sound more CG. Although you hate the rich and powerful, you have a percieved moral reason to (they oppress the weak) whereas CN tend to hate the rich and powerful because they don't like being told what to do by people whose loyalty hasn't been earned yet. It is a more slefish reason.
Good = helps everyone
Evil = helps only himself
Neutral = helps himself and his friends but can't care less about others