Rules are for Jerks: A Chaotic Good Alignment Handbook

[Larsen]

Same principle, certainly. It's noteworthy that the CG character felt the need to apologize for it; he recognized that it was not a Good action. He simply made the judgment that this CN action was for a G enough cause that he felt it justified. And still, he felt guilty about it.

Which backs up my central point: theft from those who've done nothing to cause the problem the theft is meant to solve is never a Good act, no, not even if you're CG.

But only CG would do theft in order to save someone else without gaining anything in return.

If an orphan risk death if he does not take some medicine and some aphoticary have it, a CG character might rob it.
Of course, they wouldn't rob innocent people if they could just buy the medicine or convince them to give it. But if the only choice is thieving or giving up on the orphan life, the CG won't hesitate.

Every other aligment (maybe not NG ?) would result in the death of the orphan (or try to gain something from the situation)

[Segev]

But only CG would do theft in order to save someone else without gaining anything in return.

I disagree. CN is perfectly capable of altruistic activities, and even CE might do it if they personally liked the "somebody else." Maybe the sick orphan boy reminds him of his kid sister. Or maybe the sick kid IS his kid brother. The CE guy can absolutely love and care about friends and family; he would be perfectly willing to steal and worse for them. CN types will have a wider range for whom they might do it. A CN altruist would be a classic example of a guy with "good motives" who resorts to questionable-to-evil actions as his first (easy) recourse.

If an orphan risk death if he does not take some medicine and some aphoticary have it, a CG character might rob it.

And said CG person probably will feel bad about it, because he recognizes that he's committed a less-than-Good act. And what if the apothecary doesn't have it, but can make it?

Of course, they wouldn't rob innocent people if they could just buy the medicine or convince them to give it.

Nobody is disputing this.

But if the only choice is thieving or giving up on the orphan life, the CG won't hesitate.

Oh, I think they will hesitate. They will try to find some other solution. But yes, they might make that choice. But that doesn't make it a Good choice.

Don't forget that CG people can take Neutral-aligned actions without necessarily "slipping" in their alignment. As can anybody of any alignment.

Every other aligment (maybe not NG ?) would result in the death of the orphan (or try to gain something from the situation)

Nonsense. Even the LG character could perform the theft, and feel bad about it, without necessarily losing his LG alignment. A paladin might lose his powers, but that's not the same as ceasing to be LG. (And the paladin only would need an atonement; the CN action he took would kick him for the C, but not the N.)

And LN could do it, but taking a CN action would be most painful for him. All the Evil alignments would need to have a personal liking for the sick kid to be motivated to do it, unless there was something in it for them, but even they could do it.

Note that the CE and NE monsters who do it for a kid they personally like are also performing an act more typically good than they are used to; it's a CN act. But it doesn't make them stop being evil.

[Larsen]

You can't add something to the problem and then criticize the reasonning... I specified orphan to show there was no relation between the character and the dying.

No evil or neutral person would take risks (going to jail/making an ennemy of someone with useful abilities) in order to save someone they don't even know, without any gain in perspective.

Altruism is what defines the good alignment.

[Segev]

You can't add something to the problem and then criticize the reasonning... I specified orphan to show there was no relation between the character and the dying.

Then it is, indeed, highly unlikely that an Evil character would act to help them. A Neutral one might, still, depending on his personality and how much it costs him, personally. If it's an easy theft for him to make, and he feels sorry for the kid, he might just do it. He certainly wouldn't feel guilty about it and apologize to the shopkeeper or apothecary.

A neutral one whose sympathies had been pricked is actually more likely to engage in the extortion, too, justifying it as the kid deserving it more and him wanting to do it. Remember that "respect for others' freedom as your own" is more a CG thing than a CN thing (and is totally not a CE thing at all).

No evil or neutral person would take risks (going to jail/making an ennemy of someone with useful abilities) in order to save someone they don't even know, without any gain in perspective.

Not true. It depends what they perceive the risks to be, and how much pity/sympathy they have for the kid. Neutral doesn't mean "never does anything altruistic." It just means they are less likely to do so. Making it a pitiable orphan kid does tend to push it to the "maybe" territory for Neutral types. You only get true callous disregard at all times from Evil. Neutral might be able to put it out of sight and out of mind, but if it's brought to their attention, they have to actually debate it. "Is it worth it?" "Can I live with myself?"

Neutral is not utterly selfish. It's just self-first. And an adventurer may not view "steal something" or even "extort the apothecary I won't have to deal with after this" as too much of a risk.

[Red Fel]

You can't add something to the problem and then criticize the reasonning... I specified orphan to show there was no relation between the character and the dying.

"Orphan" doesn't mean "no family," it means "no parents." You can still have siblings, cousins, even grandparents.

No evil or neutral person would take risks (going to jail/making an ennemy of someone with useful abilities) in order to save someone they don't even know, without any gain in perspective.

I disagree. There's one perfectly acceptable reason for absolutely any alignment to take a risk for a complete stranger. "I was bored, and it amused me."

Here's another example. In the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Joker's Favor," an ordinary man accidentally offends the Joker, and begs for his life. The Joker, in an uncharacteristic moment, decides to spare the man, in exchange for a favor to be collected at a future time. I don't think anyone will disagree that the Joker is classically Evil in more or less every sense. Choosing to spare a stranger - given the Joker's tendency to do entirely the opposite - for no reason whatsoever is out of character. And yet, doing so in order to extract a favor makes sense, from a certain point of view.

Taking a risk for a stranger, either for one's own amusement or for the possibility of future benefit, isn't entirely out of character, is my point.

Altruism is what defines the good alignment.

True. But Good doesn't have a monopoly on altruism any more than Evil has a monopoly on ambition. Good can act out of self-interest. Evil can act out of love. It's uncommon, and not wholly in their respective natures, but it isn't unheard of.

[Larsen]

To Segev and Red Fel:

Then we kind of agree on something at least : a neutral might help if he thinks there is not much risk/loss. An evil one if he gets something of it (either fun, thrill or debt or ...).

I just assumed that committing to theft is taking some non-negligible risks.

But I recon I might have mixed the action of "thieving the medicine to cure an orphan" and the reasons for it.

"Orphan" doesn't mean "no family," it means "no parents." You can still have siblings, cousins, even grandparents.

Well, when I give such an example, i expect you guys to understand that the orphan is someone without means to repay you for your help and that you don't personnally know. Not that he is your fiancee and also sole heir to the kingdom.

[Segev]

To Segev and Red Fel:

Then we kind of agree on something at least : a neutral might help if he thinks there is not much risk/loss. An evil one if he gets something of it (either fun, thrill or debt or ...).

I definitely agree with that. I can't speak for Red Fel (though I would guess from my reading of his prior works that it is so).

Well, when I give such an example, i expect you guys to understand that the orphan is someone without means to repay you for your help and that you don't personnally know. Not that he is your fiancee and also sole heir to the kingdom.

Clearly not the sole heir to the kingdom; one rarely refers to the Crown Prince as an "orphan," even if it's technically true.

I see what you're getting at, but the counterpoint was more that the orphan could still be important to the character in some way. It's not entirely relevant, either, if he is, in terms of alignment. Helping somebody because you care about them is a Good act. It's rarely enough Good to tilt the Evil or even the Neutral towards Good alignment, because it's usually weighed against so much more non-Good stuff they're doing, but it remains a Good act. The other things an Evil person might do in the process may well be heinous, though.

In any event, the point is that non-Good characters might also steal for a "Good" reason. But it's still a neutral-to-evil act, even if for a Good reason.

[daremetoidareyo]

In any event, the point is that non-Good characters might also steal for a "Good" reason. But it's still a neutral-to-evil act, even if for a Good reason.

Theft is a chaotic act. It doesn't fall on the moralistic axis. It is typically ascribed as "evil" by those who are lawfully inclined but that doesn't make it so. It is highly individualistic, but so are wild panthers. A wild panter who steals prey from another panther's self described "territory" isn't evil. It isn't even neutral. It's a null stat.
That is why you can loot corpses.
Of goblin children.
That you killed.
And still be a Lawful good.


However, make that corpse an important or wealthy noble (even an evil one),
and all of a sudden it's morally reprehensible and therefor labelled evil,
Just because that dude had standing in society?
and it becomes graverobbing...
And now you can't even claim to be Chaotic good?

The CG guy who steals the LG guys' goblinbane longsword to keep him from killing more goblin children is somehow the moral inferior? But if the CG guy intimidates or beats up that same LG dude is not as immoral?

At the end of the day, denying others (and groups of others, like society) the unchecked autonomy to decide whether or not an individual gets resources isn't evil. And can sometimes that refusal to capitulate can be defined as good.

[Segev]

Theft is a chaotic act.

Indeed.

It doesn't fall on the moralistic axis. It is typically ascribed as "evil" by those who are lawfully inclined but that doesn't make it so.

Not quite so true. It can be a Good act under certain circumstances. Those circumstances generally involve the current possessor of the item having come by it unrighteously. Stealing from an LE tyrant who acquired what you're stealing through force of arms or threat thereof in order to help out those from whom he took it can be a Good act.

Stealing from somebody who has harmed no innocents in the acquisition of his goods, nor condoned (tacitly or directly) such harm to perform that acquisition, is at best a neutral act. It can still be evil, if your theft causes real harm to the one from whom you steal it. It cannot be good; that person has in no way earned your forceful taking of something he sacrificed - no matter how relatively little - to acquire.

It is highly individualistic, but so are wild panthers. A wild panter who steals prey from another panther's self described "territory" isn't evil. It isn't even neutral. It's a null stat.

Wild panthers don't have agency. They are not moral agents. Animals have a "neutral" alignment as a null stat, not as an indication of their actions being moral choices that balance out. They are non-examples.

A human who steals food from an elf when both are struggling to get enough to eat to survive would not be neutral.

That is why you can loot corpses.

No, you loot corpses because there is no owner of that stuff anymore.

Of goblin children.

What?

That you killed.

You monster.

And still be a Lawful good.

Hello, Miko.

However, make that corpse an important or wealthy noble (even an evil one),
and all of a sudden it's morally reprehensible and therefor labelled evil,
Just because that dude had standing in society?

Given that I have not accepted your prior premise, I am not going to bother to argue this point, as it rests on already-rejected claims.

and it becomes graverobbing...

I believe adventurers refer to this as "dungeon crawling."

And now you can't even claim to be Chaotic good?

Sure you can! If the noble you killed deserved to be killed for the evils he perpetuated on others, and there's nobody your morals indicate has a better claim and/or greater need for his stuff. By the point you're killing entire families for their evil deeds, you've more or less determined they have no right to property since they've no right to even their own lives.

The CG guy who steals the LG guys' goblinbane longsword to keep him from killing more goblin children is somehow the moral inferior? But if the CG guy intimidates or beats up that same LG dude is not as immoral?

I suspect that the guy killing goblin children is not LG. And you're erecting a strawman here, anyway: none of the examples prior to this have involved active harm being committed by the one from whom the item is being stolen. Of course you can take away a weapon from a murderer to stop him from killing more innocents, just as you can imprison or kill said murderer for the same reason, and retain a good alignment.

At the end of the day, denying others (and groups of others, like society) the unchecked autonomy to decide whether or not an individual gets resources isn't evil. And can sometimes that refusal to capitulate can be defined as good.

I'm honestly not positive what you're trying to say here, but given the tenor of the discussion and your prior statements and claims, I am inclined to assume you mean something along the lines of: "It is within the realm of Good actions to unilaterally decide that you know better what to do with resources somebody else created or sacrificed their time and effort to acquire, even if they hurt nobody in its acquisition, and thus take it from them to use how you see fit."

If that's not what you mean, please feel free to correct me.

I patently disagree. It is at best Neutral to act on such a judgment. It is often Evil.

[LastCenturion]

Thanks for the guide! I was actually just thinking of the best way to describe chaotic alignments to my friend who's just starting playing, and this was great. I'm taking out of this "You don't need a why; others need a why not". Hope you don't mind?

Also, TPBM, I disagree entirely. The way that alignment is phrased, at least in 3.5 RAW, theft is an evil act unless the theftee is evil themselves. I'm away from my books at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that theft doesn't even affect the chaos/law axis of alignment. For something like the fifth time this thread, we enter a straw man fallacy, where people aren't actually rebutting arguments, merely debating points that seem very similar to other points but are completely different. Case in point, "CG will help orphans." "So will CE, if the orphan is their friend". Keep in mind that the first person said nothing about personal relationships. From that, most people in a neutral perspective would see it as "unrelated". Most opposing viewpoints, however, would see it as "relationship undefined" so as to have an argument against the point, or something similar to the point.

TL;DR There are so many bad arguments flying here that you can probably just ignore all rebuttals past the second page. Nice guide, OP.

[Bohandas]

Theft is a chaotic act.

What if it's a carefully planned and premeditated theft like in Ocean's Eleven?

[Red Fel]

What if it's a carefully planned and premeditated theft like in Ocean's Eleven?

Then it's a carefully planned and premeditated Chaotic act.

Chaotic doesn't mean "unable to plan."

[Keltest]

Then it's a carefully planned and premeditated Chaotic act.

Chaotic doesn't mean "unable to plan."

Unless youre a demon in the Blood War, apparently. Not that im complaining, Evil's ridiculously self destructive tendencies serve everyone.

[Segev]

Nonsense. Evil isn't self-destructive. Stupidity is. The...advantage...that Good and Law have is that the stupid who subscribe to them are blindly following optimal group dynamics. While this leads to its own problems, because blind adherence to anything inevitably will, it has an overall positive aggregate effect on the group. Evil and Chaos are perfectly capable of planning, of rational, enlightened self-interest and cooperation. The trouble is that it takes real intelligence to understand things at a depth required to appreciate them. The stupid and foolish of Chaos and Evil are short-sighted, impulsive, and prone to actions which are self-destructive because they think that morals are for chumps, and therefore they have no value whatsoever. Which, of course, leads to them making enemies, destroying resources they could have otherwise exploited, etc.

Which is why the unfortunately obvious stupid-evil and chaotic-stupid give the two alignment bands such a poor reputation.

[ThinkMinty]

Then it's a carefully planned and premeditated Chaotic act.

Chaotic doesn't mean "unable to plan."

Agreed. Particularly, Chaotic is good with changing the plans when the situation changes.

[Keltest]

Something I would add is a caution somewhere that being chaotic is not the same thing as being a compulsive rule breaker. It is a perfectly valid way to play the alignment, but it isn't the only way to be chaotic. Not every rule is out to oppress your personal freedom. Some do legitimately protect people (ie anti-slavery laws), or at least try to. Furthermore, laws tend to have enforcers, and while you might not care about the law, you do care about the people willing to beat you up over it. Youre allowed to be intelligent in your unlawfulness. Prepare to deal with the swarm before poking the hornet's nest, and judge whether the fallout from breaking the law doesn't land you in a worse situation than when you were following it.

[ThinkMinty]

Something I would add is a caution somewhere that being chaotic is not the same thing as being a compulsive rule breaker. It is a perfectly valid way to play the alignment, but it isn't the only way to be chaotic. Not every rule is out to oppress your personal freedom. Some do legitimately protect people (ie anti-slavery laws), or at least try to. Furthermore, laws tend to have enforcers, and while you might not care about the law, you do care about the people willing to beat you up over it. Youre allowed to be intelligent in your unlawfulness. Prepare to deal with the swarm before poking the hornet's nest, and judge whether the fallout from breaking the law doesn't land you in a worse situation than when you were following it.

This is very true. Chaotic alignments aren't a straightjacket, and laws that make people free (like an anti-slavery law) aren't the problem. Not caring about the law/the rules doesn't mean breaking 'em just because you can, it means they don't factor into your decisions in a significant way.

[Segev]

Absolutely. Chaotic is about not respecting authority outside yourself. This doesn't mean you can't respect others for reasons aside from their authority. It doesn't even mean you can't, for reasons that you deem good, cede your authority on specific matters or in specific cases (e.g. trusting that the medic knows how to do this surgery and that you should just do what he says in order to help him out to save the patient's life). But you won't blindly obey against your own instincts when you don't have reasons stronger than "this guy's the boss" or "the rules say so" to do so. Chaotic people always rely on their own judgment, even if it's just judgment as to whether or not the "authority" figure's orders are worth following This Time.

Lawful types, on the other hand, have a great deal of respect for authority and pre-established rules. They will NOT automatically trust their own judgment and "gut instincts" over tried and true rules or the commands of those with authority to issue them.

Both Lawful and Chaotic types can be reliable, but the Lawful type will be so because he knows his place in the hierarchy, knows his role, and does as he's told by the legitimate authority-figure. The Chaotic type is reliable if you know his personality and his judgments and what he values. They're harder to predict, but they still can be relied upon if you know them well enough.

[ThinkMinty]

Does anyone have a link to the superthread? I want to link to it in the guide.

[Seto]

There's a link in my guide (which in turn is in my sig). I'd copy-paste it for you, but I'm on my phone...

[Fuzzy McCoy]

Ask and ye shall receive. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...k-Super-Thread

[Bohandas]

Then it's a carefully planned and premeditated Chaotic act.

Chaotic doesn't mean "unable to plan."

Yes, but it does imply disorgsnization. And likeliness to deviate from plans and possibly plans that go to questionmarks like the underpants gnomes

[Abithrios]

Yes, but it does imply disorgsnization. And likeliness to deviate from plans and possibly plans that go to questionmarks like the underpants gnomes

I think this is one of those areas in which you don't have to check off every item on the list of chaotic traits to be considered chaotic overall.

[Segev]

Yes, but it does imply disorgsnization. And likeliness to deviate from plans and possibly plans that go to questionmarks like the underpants gnomes

It implies disorganization mainly because the Law/Chaos divide emphasizes a distinction between rigidity and randomness. The thing is, though, that Chaotic organizations are not a misnomer nor a contradiction in terms. A chaotic organization just has defining principles, sets of guidelines or "best practices," and a hierarchy that is typically just solid enough that, if disputes arise, there's somebody to make a final decision.

Chaotic organizations are highly adaptive, tend to operate with a great deal of independence given to the most on-the-ground actors, and rely heavily on firm understanding of goals so that everybody can work towards them. They often abandon rules that clearly don't help them out, or even which seem to be in the way, and they tend to reward "initiative" if it works. This will vary, of course, since finding patterns in chaos is possible but not 100% reliable; some will punish "initiative" if it was unacceptably risky, even if it worked, or if it showed a moral failing (too kind, revealing weakness in CE, or too cruel and callous to be tolerated in CG, for instance).

Plans made by chaotic types will tend to be strongly goal-oriented, and only weakly process-oriented. They may well be intricate in detail for particularly tricky things, with rigid timings, even, but they will lend themselves more towards Xanatos Speed Chess than towards clockwork precision. More than Lawful types, they will NEED communication of changing parameters if there is a lot of interconnected dependence. (Lawful types can get by on knowing precise timings and relying on everybody doing things EXACTLY according to procedure.)

[Bohandas]

Regarding the "revolutionary" examples, I see Huey Freeman (as well as his creator, Aaron McGruder) as more of a Don Quixote figure

[Eladrinblade]

Trithereon needs to be on the deity list. He's archetypical CG, and it's an affront that he wasn't in the phb.

[Boogastreehouse]

*

Theft is a chaotic act.

I hereby invoke the Indy example. Indiana Jones would steal an artifact from a corrupt archeologist like Belloq, or from a bunch of evil Nazis.

What is his motivation? "That relic belongs in a museum!"

That sounds like a very Lawfully-oriented action to me.


*

[AvatarVecna]

While Indiana Jones is almost an archetypal Lawful Good character, stealing is a Chaotic action that is being justified by 1) being for the Greater Good keeping a dangerous/important artifact out of the hands of Lawful Evil goons, and 2) doing a crime thing to Nazis almost universally doesn't count as doing a crime thing, as far as most movies are concerned; theft, murder, torture...about the only crime thing done in movies that would be horrible if it wasn't be done to Nazis that hasn't been done to my knowledge is non-consensual sex (although I'm sure it's happened at some point, and I'm only slightly less sure that the "raping the Nazi" scene is being inexplicably played for comedy).

EDIT: I literally thought of an example for a "Nazi getting raped" scene being played for comedy just as I was hitting the Post button: in the parody movie "Top Secret", a Nazi spy who insisted on being the rear end part of a two-man cow outfit ends up getting mounted by a bull.

[Boogastreehouse]

*

Hmm, I see what you're saying, but the more I think about it, the more I think that lawful theft might be a real thing (and I'm not referring to taxes).

If a lawful person has an occupation that involves breaking and entering and theft, but only under very specific conditions, then perhaps the theft is a Lawful act.

I just thought of another possible example of lawful breaking and entering and theft: a professional spy.


*

[Segev]

I hereby invoke the Indy example. Indiana Jones would steal an artifact from a corrupt archeologist like Belloq, or from a bunch of evil Nazis.

What is his motivation? "That relic belongs in a museum!"

That sounds like a very Lawfully-oriented action to me.

"Theft is a chaotic act" is a simplification of a slightly more complicated concept: the notion of rightful ownership. Everybody has some level of conception of this (to the point where races/cultures which lack this concept are called out specifically; it is an alien aspect of them). Even real-world human cultures which have highly communal notions of property have a concept of "ours," as broken down to the family or tribal level.

Chaotic people, even, tend to recognize that there IS a 'rightful owner' of something. They may base it on a number of vague factors that add up to "whoever I think deserves it the most," but it's there. What tends to make a Chaotic person Chaotic in this respect is the highly situational notion they apply to it.

Possession being 9/10 of ownership tends to be where we get the notion that taking something from an "unrightful" owner is theft. It can be argued that it is not theft if one has the authority to do it.

Chaotic people don't CARE about authority; they'll take it if they think it's the right thing to do (where "the right thing" may mean more about "I want it and can get away with it" than "morally right"). Lawful people will seek to restore unrightfully-held property to the possession of its lawful owner. While most tend to think they should thus do this in broad daylight with open declaration of what they're doing and why, backed up with the force of law (and arms), a Lawful rogue could just as easily simply snatch it on the authority he knows he possesses under the law.

The biggest key is that they don't really consider it "theft." No more than the tax collector considers tax collection to be banditry. (If you think about it, the man who walks up and tells you to give him your property because it rightfully belongs to the group he represents, and who backs it up with armed men who will do unpleasant things to you while they take it by force if you don't cooperate, is functionally the same from your perspective, if you only respect authority due to force of arms, if he's representing the lawful lord of the land or representing the outlaw band that happens to rove this region.)

So Indy isn't stealing, technically. He's engaged in lawful activity to stop lawbreakers/enemy soldiers from doing lawless activities.



There's also the whole "all's fair in war" clause which tends to crop up in most lawful groups. Honor rules and rules of warfare may exist, but they're almost invariably different than rules outside of war. And Indy is definitely facing enemies on the other side of a war-like conflict.